Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Long-Playing Business Record
khendron writes "The Globe and Mail has an article which tells it like it is. Microsoft is looking at it constant court costs and anti-trust fines as simply 'the cost of doing business,' and has no intention of changing. A telling quote 'Losing or settling case after case, Microsoft has tested the bounds of antitrust and patent infringement law, with little evidence that its power has waned or that its behaviour has been substantially changed. Rivals and many legal experts say antitrust law itself has come out the worse for the skirmishes, while Microsoft appears to have built the ongoing scrutiny, fines and remedies into a strategy showing scant sign of reform.'"
"I can tell you with 100 per cent certainty that when managers are deciding what features to put inside products, they are not considering antitrust issues unless it is in a very narrow area covered by the DOJ settlement," said Matt Rosoff, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, a research firm that closely covers the company.
... Nobody ever said the browser did not meet the rule-of-reason test. It absolutely met the rule-of-reason test to go in." You just HAVE to love that. Ballmer getting to decide what's ok and what's not.
Unfortunately, because of how these types of things have been handled (including laws), they have been either way too specific or way too broad. On one hand we have the DCMA that has sweeping implications for tons of different situations. It has done little but allow for more lawsuits from bigger fish against the minnows. I believe its intention was to protect but it ended up making everything so vunerable. On the other hand, we have MS' settlement. They are basically allowed to do what they want based on what they think is best. What the fuck kind of punishment is that? As long as they stay within the narrow constraints placed on them they are good to go. Asked whether the "rule of reason" test would have prevented Microsoft from bundling the browser, the issue at the heart of the Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit, Mr. Ballmer was adamant: "I would still integrate a browser. We would still integrate the Media Player.
While I have reservations about both the browser and the media player being "integrated" (for obvious tin-foil-hat reasons), I am more concerned w/the simple fact that THEY get to decide for themselves what is all right. After all the fucking money that was wasted coming to this fucking "punishment" why don't we have a team of REAL FUCKERS telling MS what to do? Hmm, looks like it is the other way around eh?
And to think, I always believed that the laws were to protect those that could not easily protect themselves.
It just allows the rich companies to continue to abuse the system and break rules that other smaller companies have to follow. Once you're in power, it's much easier to stay in power.
Fines are often too low all-around. Look at the rich Porsche driver. He can easily afford to pay those speeding tickets, can't he?
Now, if Microsoft could be made to pay, let's say, in free goods. Imagine if the government could force them, say, to actually GIVE AWAY an internet browser and also a media/sound file player with Windows. That would really show 'em, right?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
In other news today...
grass declared green
sky said to be "bluish"
water is often wet
sigh...
Just as irrigation is the lifeblood of the Southwest, lifeblood is the soup of cannibals. -- Jack Handy
As others have said elsewhere, around 60 Billion in cash = deep pockets to bring out some seriously nitpicking lawyers.
They have the resources to just drawwwwwwwwwwwwww any legal experience out beyond viability for anyone other than a decent sized business (personally that's why i think that class suite from the US states pretty much folded in their favour anyway).
"You want to sue us? fine, stand there while we smack you about the head with a 2x4 a while first please"
Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
Is there anything that Microsoft has been sued for "illegally integrating" that a Linux distribution or Mac would be caught dead without? Monopoly or no monopoly, a modern OS requires an internet browser and a video player.
Anti-trust law is not supposed to be government or corporate welfare project.
When a company can simply write off 'punishments' as costs of doing business, they cease to be punishments. Increase the fines, or make them percentages instead of amounts, if you want to change anything. (Percentages would be better because it would affect small companies the same as big companies.)
Microsoft, like all other companies, has one duty: To make as big of a profit as possible. It's up to society, and therefore the government, to provide them with economic incentive to be nice and play fair.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Great summary line from the article: "Government is really not equipped to regulate in such a fast-moving industry as technology," Rosoff added. "That's why the most aggressive antitrust commentators originally pressed for the breakup of the company."
So whose fault is it that Government is "inequipped" to regulate high-tech? If I was inequipped to teach my son about how to walk, and he tried to do it himself, should I cut him off at the knees?
And is it moral to destroy a company simply because you can't move faster than the marketplace for its products? And if the marketplace moves so quickly to make monopolies, might it not move equally quickly to destroy them?
"They are giving away Internet browsers and media players, dumbass."
Captain Obvious has saved the day! Thanks! None of us ever knew this.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
In a 1997 e-mail to investor Warren Buffett, senior Microsoft executive Jeff Raikes summarized the company's strategy in simple terms. . .
"If we own the key 'franchises' built on top of the operating system, we dramatically widen the 'moat' that protects the operating system business," Mr. Raikes wrote. "If I owned the most successful daily newspaper in Buffalo, I wouldn't want to leave it to my competitor to own the Sunday edition."
Ironic, because Buffalo has had only one newspaper since the Buffalo Courier-Express folded in 1982. The only one that is left is the Buffalo News.
There is no competitor to leave the sunday edition to.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
The unfortunate truth is that for Microsoft to do business differently the attitudes of people in a lot of different positions has to change.
Just to name a few:
Investors have to realize that pumping money into a company that turns around and puts the money in the bank is ultimately the same as putting their money into their own bank.
Businesses have to realize that the one-supplier solution for IT is as bad as a one-supplier solution for anything else.
The government has to realize that they don't want a company competing with them for control over the masses.
Didn't Crimly just cover this?
/. too.
You mean Robert X. Cringely in "Now the Only Way Microsoft Can Die is by Suicide". Yes, and it was discussed on
Microsoft has had the beat us if you can, stop us if you can attitude for some time. You can't blame them for wanting to take over the world...doesn't everyone. The failure here is to successfully demonstrate that in taking over the world they have used dirty tricks to snuff out the competition. Until any settlement hurts them either in the wallet (unlikely) or in their ability to operate as a company (split them up), they will continue with business as usual. Either the laws are outdated/weak, or the cases are flawed - or both
The other problem is that the average non-slashdot computer user probably thinks Microsoft first when they buy software - why? everyone uses it - so it must be the best, and half the time Microsoft is giving it away, whereby the competitor is trying to build/stay in business. Bundling applications/features that drive other companies out of business (regardless of the quality of the programs) hurts everyone but Microsoft. Although I wonder if things were flipped and if Apple had the 90% share would companies/governments/people be suing them for including iPhoto/iTunes/iMovie, etc?
MS is not alone in this behavior. Large local telephone companies are regulated by the states in which they operate, and many of those states require certain levels of company responsiveness when customers call -- eg, that 95% of calls be answered by a person in less than 30 seconds. Staffing to the necessary level has historically been quite expensive, and the level of fine that the states can impose for non-compliance relatively small. When you have to decide between spending $20M on additional staffing, or pay a $10M fine, the answer is fairly obvious.
I suppose extensive outsourcing to India or the Philipines will change the equation...
When Bill Gates goes and gets a law passed just so he can import a special car for himself, you know there's no hope that laws are there "to protect those that could not easily protect themselves"
;-)
I don't have the URL but it was over a year ago that I read how Bill wanted a car imported and that it was sitting at the dock for months and months because he was not supposed to import the car. He hired a bunch of lawyers and they worked with their representative to have a law written up so Bill could get his car. The law was then tied in with some others that were sure to get passed and the whole bunch ended up going through.
Do you really think Bill and Steve care about the law? With Windows and Office, it's all about protecting the monopoly. The Bush administration pulled the rug out from under the last/best effort to even the field. As stated elsewhere, a breakup of Microsoft was the best answer. It'll probably take up to 10 years for Linux and OSS to bash them down to size. Even then, they'll surely start using their billions like the RIAA and start taking any and all OSS projects to court on IP issues.
Maybe it's time the OSS community started holding quartly Pro-Linux events. Ones where we run over boxes of Microsoft software with a steamroller driven by a penguin who's handing out free Linux/OSS CDs. Or maybe David Letterman will drop blocks of cement from a building on Microsoft CDs below...
Then again, offering to schools, free labor and support for switching from Windows to Linux might get better press. But it's not as fun.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Disclaimer: IANAL, but my father is. As has been said, it's Microsoft's goal, as a corporation, to attain as much profit as they are able to. But it's also the duty of the government to protect their citizens - including protecting them from a market where there is no choice. I've read that the Reagan administration pretty well gutted a good number of antitrust laws, and those are the sort of things that try to keep corporations in check. I, for one, am not anywhere near as pro-business as the Republican Party of the US is (and I'm a Canadian), and I am very much in favour of stringent regulations to prevent abuses of the system. While Microsoft has indeed come out ahead in the preceding legal cases, that doesn't mean that we can't change that for the future. The introduction of new laws or revision of existing ones would certainly be a way to do it. For cases where they've won, Microsoft has precedent on their side, and that can be a powerful legal advantage. By replacing the existing laws, that advantage can be negated, and the present failings in the regulatory system addressed. And, as I think of it, governments may want to think of it like disciplining a child. A fine may deter a company, but if it doesn't, you don't keep fining them in the hopes that the repetition will make it more effective. If your current measures aren't working, you switch to new ones. I'm reminded of an analogy somebody once made about World War One: Commanding Officer: "Let's rush the other guy's trenches!" *A little later* "Sir, the rush failed. Most of the men are dead or wounded." The commanding officer: "Let's do it again! I'm sure it'll work *this* time!"
Join the Empire! http://www.empirereborn.net/
I know soemone will reply with talk about how the last election was stolen, etc., but let's get past that and focus on the election that is to come. Negativity and pessamism on this are working in favor of the status quo!
Peace.
This has been pretty obvious for several years now - breaking the law is not an exceptional circumstance, it is part of regular business, and the fines and lawyers fees etc. are just a regular business expense.
When you have large quantities of money and can afford infinite legal resources, unlike your competitors, manipulation of the law becomes a regular business process that could even be documented.
The only way that this can be changed is for fines for offences to be relative to the revenue of the company concerned and deliberately hurtful.
It is unlikely that this will occur though as such companies are too valuable to the US economy.
In other words we can't do anything about this - we are held to ransom by such behaviour.
So the basic thrust of your argument is that corporations exist outside the sphere of ethical reasoning, and they are required to do whatever is in their own best interests, without regard for any questions beyond "will I get caught" and "can I beat the rap if I do?"
Let's think about the whole "corporation as person" mentality in our legal system. The corporation you describe has no higher goal than to do whatever increases its own wealth and power, regardless of the consequences. This includes defying or ignoring regulations that govern the marketplace, buying favorable legislation, and using anticompetitive means to destroy anyone who dares step on its turf.
If a corporation is an entity with legal presence, just like a person, then this person is very much like a class of real people: sociopaths.
We don't allow sociopaths to walk the streets freely; we arrest them and throw them in jail. Why should a corporation be given less scrutiny?
SHAMELESS != BLAMELESS. Please note the distinction.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I highly recommend the article, it's an interesting read and is quite apropros.
When you get to the end of your road you have Facism. When companies reach the point that they effectively have total control over a market the rules change. From your remarks, I would assume that you would consider it a fair game of sport to pit a team of 6 year olds against an adult profesional sports team as long as they followed the same set of rules.
Yes - MS has the right to produce software
No - MS has the right to bundle software together
- Not in an attempt to use their monopoly to leverage another market
Yes - MS has the right to build better software than other companies.- They have the right, they just don't exercise their right. They use their monopoly position to put out poor quality software. The US auto industry as a whole had a monopoly on car sales in the US until the 1970's. They kept putting out poor quality products and complained about loosing sales to foreign manufatures. MS can continue to put out poor quality software
Yes - MS has the right to market its software- As long as marketing is not another term for lying which has been a hallmark of MS. But then again, people who express the kind of ideas you do don't believe that fraud in business is an actionable offence.
Yes - MS has the right to not release its source codeYes - MS has the right to make a profit
- As long as it is made legally. Why did MS not have to pay hefty fines to the SEC last year while other companies did for the same offence?
Yes - MS has the right to not make public its internal protocols, file formats, internal api calls- It then should not market its products as general use.
Yes - MS has the right to change its software from version to version- That is fine. It will make people like it less
No - MS has the right to not make sure that each and every change to its software does not break some non-MS software- Not in an attempt to use their monopoly to leverage another market. When they market some of their software as a general purpose operating systems that other software companies can create applications on they don't have the right
But then again your are just a MICROSOFT TROLL.Tell you what. Give me twice as much money as Bill Gates, and I'll donate twice as much to charity as Bill Gates. In fact, give me twice what Bill Gates donated to charity plus one percent, and I'll gladly donate twice as much to charity as Bill Gates does. And I'll become an extremely wealthy person in the process.
Here's the thing: Bill Gates isn't a generous philanthropist, just an extremely wealthy one. He's like anyone else who donates fifty bucks a year to the homeless shelter down on Main Street. By that, I don't mean that he gives the same amount, or the same proportion. Instead, I mean that he donates money to these causes after he's already provided for all his own needs and wants.
Remember the parable of the Widow's Mite? The rich man gave from his bounty, while the poor woman gave despite her own need. The person who chooses to feed the hungry rather than feed herself has performed a far more generous act than someone who chooses to feed the hungry rather than... buy Oracle?
In short, the only difference between Bill Gates and everyone else who gives money to charity is that Bill Gates has a whole lot more of it.
Which brings us to the question of how he got that money in the first place. Yay capitalism, right? As your high UID indicates, you're pretty new here. So let me start by disabusing you of the notion that America is a capitalistic country. We have all sorts of impediments to true lassiez-faire capitalism, and that's not always a bad thing. Libertarians may bitch and moan about how much money is being spent on government programs like OSHA, the EPA, the SEC, etc, and they can certainly point to examples of excess and stupidity by any government program. But each of those three agencies arose precisely because true capitalism wasn't providing solutions to important abuses.
We're not a capitalistic country in that we have social programs like welfare. As a country, we've decided that just because pure capitalism would let certain people starve in the streets, that doesn't mean we should let it happen.
Finally, we're non-capitalistic in the sense that we have anticompetitive cartels and monopolies, that cannot be addressed on a consumer level, and have not been addressed by the government. The RIAA, Microsoft, and your local gas company are all monopolies of one sort or another.
The point is, there is a broad spectrum of possibilities between capitalism, anarchy, and communism. America has chosen its spot, while many European countries are camped out closer to the socialism flag.
In closing, here is a quick list of reasons you should have a problem with Microsoft (readers feel free to add):
* 60 billion in the bank, enough to buy up the airline industry.
* A string of anticompetitive acts dating back to the early eighties, leading to two separate taxpayer-funded lawsuits.
* It has been widely rumored that Microsoft is funding SCO's war on Linux.
* Features first, bugfixes later, security wheneverwegetaroundtoit. That has been their strategy for decades, and I have no confidence that this new "security initiative" will have any success.
* Microsoft Outlook.
* Clippy.
* Microsoft is a monopoly. So declares the judicial system. Monopolies stifle innovation and competition.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Simple, you freeze them in the spot. No money or supplies go in, no money or products go out. The company is effectively frozen in time, unable to do business.
Now, most of you are probably looking at this going, "But if that happened to MS, the world would screech to a halt!" But isn't that the point others were trying to make? That having a single supplier situation is a Bad Thing. If this happened to a more diverse market, such as auto suppliers for a car rental company, the company could switch to another supplier (I'm making the assumption that if the law were like this, corps would have a sufficient backup plan to put into place).
When the company "returned" to business, they could try and pick up their contracts again, or realize that because of their behavior, their market has dwindled. I think this would work better than a static fine (as evidenced in this case) as well as a percentage fine, since charging a small company $1000 for an infraction can also be seen as a slap on the wrist. (Now, I know that a small company and monopoly tend to be mutually exclusive, but I mean other infractions that corporate entities can commit as well.)