Slashdot Mirror
Japanese Government Raids Microsoft Offices
Nakito writes "According to an article at the financial news site Bloomberg, Microsoft's Tokyo office was raided by Japan's Fair Trade Commission, which is investigating whether the world's largest software maker violated the country's anti-monopoly law." Other readers note a AP/Yahoo story claiming: "A commission official, speaking on customary condition of anonymity, said Microsoft Japan is suspected of attaching improper restrictive conditions when signing software deals with Japanese personal computer manufacturers, such as requiring that Japanese companies allow infringement of their patents."
It is absolutely ridiculous that our rights (to free trade in this instance) in the United States are treated so lightly by our government.
At every opportunity it seems the president is reinforcing "his commitment to spreading freedom throughout the world" yet it takes a foreign power to ultimately prove how hollow that sentiment is.
When compared against Europe and Japan, the United States commitment to protecting its citizenry from overbearing coorperate powers is shown lacking time and again. I for one an tired of the hypocrisy.
Its shameful that I have to look to another country with hope that something will be done to curb the monopolistic amoral appetite of these coorperations.
For now I can only say "go Japan!". I'm embarrased by the entire predicament.
It might not have happened if MS were Japanese company?
You said:
and that was what I was challenging. Just because MS is (potentially) found to be a monopoly in Japan does not mean that they will be found to be a monopoly in some other country or that they will change their behavior when penetrating new markets based on any such ruling.
I've made up my mind and now I've got to lie in it.
when the governments of the world learn that this is how capitalism works.
I disagree.
There are plenty of companies in the IT world that play fair, work together to form open protocols for the greater good, and don't stoop to what amounts to sabotage (think of how Microsoft has bastardized CSS to protect IE's market dominance) to increase their straglehold on the market.
I'm all for capitalization, but Microsoft doesn't play by any of the rules, written or otherwise, unless they are forced to or it meets their objectives.
Are you kidding me? They're getting away with it because it's a foriegn company. Japanese corporations get away with things we'd never dream of in this country. They have no trouble with overreaching corporations as long as they're there own. Japanese trade policy has always seen Japanese Companies and government working hand in hand to pry open foreign markets by every means nessecary, and the nature of the complaints has Japanese coporate complaint all over them.
Why?
1) Don't kid yourself, Bill never spent any time starving in a basement doing development. Grandpa Gates and all his grandkids, Bill included, have always had plenty to go around. Bills education was handed to him on a silver platter, and his success (which he deserves, he is a shrewd business man with an eye for opportunity) owes it's existence to that fact.
And if you review a little Micro-Soft history (hyphen intentional) you'll see that control has always been an underlying factor in their decisions and actions. Bill certainly never said it's about being open, even when the entire software industry was open.
2) Red Hat, SUSE, and Intel to name a few. Intel? Yes, Intel supports many open standards and by and large I'd say they "play by the rules". Are the agressive at business? Absolutely. But does that mean they sabotage open standards (like Microsoft repeatedly does to CSS) to ensure their success? No, they don't.
Make no mistake, the current IT environment (except for open source) is just how Microsoft wants it. They continually do things to keep consumers stupid (like hiding file extensions by default, still! All that does is ensure that everyone and their dog clicks on hot_sex.jpg.exe and gets the latest virus, but it keeps consumers stupid, just the way Microsoft likes it). They continually do things to break standards, knowing that 90% of websites will be designed to Microsofts munged versions of the standard and look great in IE, but somehow not render right in other browsers.
There's plenty more, but it's getting late and you don't want to hear it anyway...
I don't think it is the same "Micro$oft Sux!" banter we hear so much from us Linux zealots. At least it was not intended in that spirit.
I admire what Microsoft has accomplished technologically. XP really is a good operating system, especially considering how young 32 bit GUI operating systems are in the scheme of things.
My point is not what Microsoft has accomplished, but how they've gone about it.
Take for instance their efforts to keep IE on top of the mountain:
1) With CSS they released their own buggy variant of the code, with carefully chosen deviations from the open standard, knowing full well that 90% of websites would be developed to their munged standard instead of the actual open CSS specification. The result they were after? When someone looks at a site in another browser, it mysteriously doesn't render right. "This browser sucks!", they say, as they go back to IE.
Similar tactics were used with HTML, JavaScript, JAVA, XML, and a host of others. Microsoft knows exactly what they are doing in this arena, and it is dirty pool!
2) Using their monopoly status to strongarm computer manufacturers to put IE and only IE on the desktop. Imagine if Microsoft no longer allowed Dell to ship Microsoft OS's on their computers. So, of course, Dell MUST comply, or wither and die on the vine. It took the feds stepping in to sort of stop this particular instance, but they same type of tactics are used against the computer manufacturers continually to meet Microsofts objectives.
3) Claiming IE must be part of the OS and can't be removed. This is a load of crap tantamount to perjury. I have standalone versions of IE 6, 5.5, and 5 that all run independantly on my XP just fine.
Over and over again Microsoft has shown they'll play dirty pool doing whatever they can get away with, very well orchestrated and thought out (as in the case of CSS), unless they are forced by more than an act of congress.
Everyone loses except Microsoft. Yes, Microsoft deserves our appreciation for creating the digital world we have today, but a world of open standards is far preferred from here on out. And Microsoft won't take that future lying down. They'll just plain take the future by lying (and cheating, and stealing, and strongarming, and...).
1) I'm an owner of a web design firm, and let me tell you, Microsoft screwing with CSS, HTML etc is a MAJOR problem that affects more than just web designers.
.doc file is, they just know it has a big blue W on it).
The only fair way to approach the problem is to compare the world with and without this tactic. We know what it is with this tactic (spend a few minutes surfing the net, or a few hours designing a site and trying to get it to look right in the different browsers).
If Microsoft played nice with the other children, CSS would be a far more powerful standard, reducing filesizes and load times for all, the energy and time wasted screwing with Microsoft could be spent on more productive things, I wouldn't be wasting my time writing this comment, and new and exciting features could be created as part of the open standard.
Instead we have to settle with what we have, a bunch of half broken, half implemented standards.
And this is just CSS, the problem is just as bad with JavaScript & worse with XML. And no, 99.9% of the sites do not work correctly in Firefox (and it's not because Firefox isn't a good browser, because it's a great browser). I still need to open IE daily for sites with broken JavaScript or pages that only partially render.
Open standards benefit everyone. Period.
2) I read your entire linked post, and can see why the decision makes sense for OEM's. It's a no-brainer for them. But it is a clear case of Microsoft abusing their monopoly status to crush the little guys. Is Microsoft threatened by Linux? You bet. Do they want Dell shipping servers with Red Hat on them? No way.
And the difference between market domination and a monopoly are that one can be abused, the other cannot.
Ford does not have the leverage to go to the gas stations and demand they only sell Ford compatible gas. But that is exactly what Microsoft does, and gets away with in the computer industry. (Ford doesn't have the same type of market dominance as Microsoft. Few do. That is the point.)
3) Bundling is just another abuse of monopoly power and it isn't good for consumers. Microsoft constantly and consistently tries to keep consumers dumb, and they succeed. 90% of the desktops out there don't show file extensions, this is bad for consumers (think virus's, in particular) and good for Microsoft (no one knows what a
I don't want to force open source on people anymore than I want Microsoft jammed down my throat. I should have the right to buy a Dell computer with nothing on it, if I so choose. That isn't (or at least hasn't been) the case.
Here's to the future! May it be open.
No. But I have helped prepare the paperwork for a successful patent filing in Japan. The difference between the US and Japan is that you cannot patent bollocks. In this particular case 8 patents for the US ended up being 4 patents in EU and only 1 in Japan.
First: their patent office has not yet degenerated into an approval stamp machine so the patents have to have merit.
Second: they charge an arm and a leg for a patent filing so even large corporations avoid defencive patenting and stuff that has no commercial value is not patented at all.
I usually get flamed by the idealists which still believe in the "small inventor", but I will say it again. This is the way a patent system is supposed to work. A patent is a government guarantee to the inventor that he/she will be capable to exploit the commercial merits of his/her invention. Note the words commercial. So with all due respect I do not see any merits in trying to patent an invention of no commercial merit.
The side effect of this is that the US method of IPR development is reversed. For Japan you first find financial backers for the idea and then patent it.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/