Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft faces Monopoly Lawsuit (again)
james_in_denver writes "Forbes magazine is reporting
that Microsoft will be sued in California for predatory pricing. This lawsuit appears to differ from earlier challenges to MicroSoft's marketplace dominance by entertaining the possibility of a Class-Action lawsuit. This would allow individual users/licensee's to participate in the lawsuit. A notable quote from the full text states: "It's anticompetitive, it's predatory, and it denies consumers, and in this case taxpayers, the benefits of innovation that a free marketplace should provide,""
"This lawsuit appears to differ from earlier challenges to MicroSoft's marketplace dominance by entertaining the possibility of a Class-Action lawsuit." Um, RTFA? At least 16 other states have had similar lawsuits, including the recent settlement here in Minnesota.
(MS Product->Who they stole or bought it from)
MS PowerPoint->Forethought Presenter
MS FrontPage->VTI FrontPage
MS Visio->Visio
MS SQL Server->Sybase SQL Server
MS Internet Explorer->Spyglass Mosaic
MS DOS->SCS QDOS
MS Visual Foxpro->Fox S/W FoxPro
MS Windows NT->Digital Equipment Corporation
MS DoubleSpace->STAC
Any other examples of the "Great Innovator"?
$295 for the full version of XP Professional.
And don't even think about server versions... $thousands, easily, once you factor in "Client Access Licenses".
Microsoft's spokeswoman is lying through her teeth though...
Bull. When's the last time a Microsoft product's price has gone DOWN? Never. They've gone up with each iteration. Nobody was paying $300 for DOS or Windows 3.1, I can tell you that.
You can't even buy older versions of MS operating systems at reduced prices.
Well, I'm running a nice free OS on my laptop (although in reality I did pay Mandrake), but I _also_ had to pay Microsoft for an OS I had no intention of using and have never booted.
It's predatory because there is no way for me to buy a laptop within 100 miles of my house which does not include Windows. Either I pay MS and use their OS, or I pay MS and install another OS, but either way, I pay MS.
You forgot MS Windows->IBM.
MS does innovate...but they have to buy time and a base product to do it. MS identifies a space which it has no market and sizes it up. It will then buy a struggling competitor with marginal share in that space and release that product as MS product. MS marketing then goes into hyperdrive to push that product everywhere.
MS adds something to these products, but it takes the third or fourth version for them to be better than or comparable to other products in the same space. By this time they usually have lead market share or a significant portion.
MS, "The Great Marketer..." (to pointy haired types.)
-Electrawn
Murray Rothbard. Ludwig von Mises. F.A. Hayek. And many others.
Basic truth: Government cannot interfere in a free market - IN ANY WAY - without distorting it. What is the free market? A free market is a market where buyers and sellers are able to meet and make a trade without interference. This trade is mutually beneficial, otherwise it would not have been made. When government interferes in this arrangement, these trades are either not made, or they not as beneficial to both parties as they otherwise would have been. (Otherwise, what would have been the point of the interference? The "best thing" would have happened anyway, making government intervention a total waste.)
You are correct in that government benefits _some_ business. Microsoft, for example, made billions of dollars based on the notional value of its intellectual property, which government secured _at no cost to Microsoft_. You are statutorily unable to copy the software, disassemble or reverse-engineer it, or remove pieces from it to use in your software, without being guilty of a crime. I find it droll that a company which took maximal advantage of this amazing boon now expresses indignance at being charged with "predatory pricing", as though such a thing were possible. (Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas, etc.) You can examine the effects of government on the market in other industries as well, creating what are commonly known as "cartels".
Enforcement of contracts presupposes a situation where people make and break promises willy-nilly, which _of course_ requires the Hand of God^H^H^HGovernment to correct, forcing everybody to "play by the rules". There is no such epidemic of perfidy about; those people who do not honor their contracts typically discover many fewer takers for their next proposed contract. The problem is self-correcting. Further, even in those instances where a contract must be "enforced", it is a highly dubious proposition that government must be involved; examine the practice of private debt collection as one example, a case where one party made a contract with another and then refused to make good on their obligation. There are a multitude of ways to seek restitution; government intervention is not the only path, and indeed is hardly the best.
There is no such thing as a "pure public good". "Pure public goods" are a misnomer; they inevitably wind up "belonging" to a certain elite class at the continuing expense of the rest of the populace. Something "belongs" to you only if you have complete control over its disposition; if you believe that you "own" any portion of purportedly public property, try taking your aliquot piece of it and using it for your own purposes and see how far that gets you.
Finally, governments do not "bust up" monopolies, they tend to create them. Reread above; Microsoft was created by the government enforcement of copyright of software. If you doubt this analysis, ask yourself this; what are the effects of regulation on an industry? They constitute a statutory (i.e. "non-market-based") barrier to entry to that market thereby creating an unnatural shortage of competition, of course. Monopoly - total control of a particular industry - is a natural extension of regulation. Indeed, once traced back to the root, all known instances of monopoly have sprung forth from government intervention in a market.
You need a lesson or two in economics, I'm afraid. You could also stand a lesson in the precise definition of "anarchy". I daresay you'd most benefit from a heapin' helpin' of Shut The Fuck Up, too, but I have my doubts that you'll partake. Oh well. Have a nice day!
I am Chaos. I am alive, and I tell you that you are Free. -Eris
Actually, I asked the AAI about this, and they were rather helpful.
I was told that the CA & MN settlements were the most favorable to consumers. Yes, California isn't the only state settling these. If you haven't already, you may well get a letter telling you that you're a party to these things. I'm in Arizona and I just got mine last week.
Now then, if you don't like the settlement (and I don't like the Arizona settlement), you have two options:
1) Opt-out. You get nothing, but you retain the right to sue Microsoft. This probably isn't that useful unless you're planning your own class-action lawsuit. I imagine that most of the agreements have a termination clause which says that if a few hundred thousand people opt-out, the agreement is nullified & they renegotiate (or something).
2) Object. Submit proof of your class membership along with a letter to the parties listed in the letter you should've gotten detailing why you think the settlement isn't "fair, reasonable and adequate." For example, I'm looking into opposing the Arizona settlement because it's inadequate--I don't think it's quite as good as the CA settlement (but I still have to finish my comparisons). Speaking of which, if any legal-types who know Arizona court rules & wouldn't mind helping me out are welcome to contact me -- mvenzke gmail com -- because the Arizona vouchers do seem rather crappy & calculated to funnel the money right back to Microsoft.
Although I wasn't clear, I certainly don't blame just Republicans. Trial lawyers have come out whole heartedly for Kerry/Edwards. And as we should all know by now, Edwards gained his notoriety by suing companies. (discussing the merits of which would simply be off-topic).
It does seem to me, though, that the Justice department's policy toward M$ shifted from the Clinton to the Bush administration. The Bush administration settled with M$ on bozo terms. I'm not saying the Clinton administration wouldn't have done the same thing. But the rhetoric was stronger when the Democrats ruled PA avenue and John Ashcroft was too busy stealing civil liberties from the consumers that Micro$oft rapes.
You said it man. Nobody f#%ks with the Jesus.
Microsoft is anti competitive because they violate the anti trust laws, namely the Clayton and Sherman Acts of the US Code.
Microsoft was sued by 20 states and they lost.
One of the complaints against Microsoft was that they intimidated computer Manufacturers into installing only Windows on their products or face MS licensing restrictions.
The court found this practice unlawful and ordered MS to offer the same licensing agreements to all manufacturers regardless of wether or not they install Windows on all their products.
An example of where this is still happening is if you buy an IPAQ Pocket PC and install Linux on it. You still pay for the MS license for Windows and neither HP nor MS will give you a refund.