Microsoft Chided Over Exclusive Music Idea

grumpyman writes "The federal judge overseeing Microsoft Corp.'s business practices scolded the company Wednesday over a proposal to force manufacturers to tether iPod-like devices to Microsoft's own music player software. Microsoft blamed the proposal on a newly hired, "lower-level business person" who did not understand the company's obligations under the antitrust settlement."

Comments

A Tale of Two Microsoft's

[einhverfr]

I used to work at Microsoft. I started out as a temp and was eventually hired full time. I have worked in PSS, and apprenticed in other departments such as testing. I as also deeply involved in many competitive discussions regarding Linux, etc. Indeed, over two years after I quit, I am still seeing the effects of suggestions I made to high-level competitive managers while I worked there.

Pretty much every thing you say is true. To a point. It is true that Microsoft is a place where one can generally have a lot of freedom on how you do your job and you only find out once a year that the management thinks several of your most important contributions were wastes of time (a more common complaint than you might think), and that in general, it was a fairly satisfying place to work. It is true that people take a lot of pride in their work, and that most of the people there, especially those in product development, are primarily interested in making quality software, though whether they succeed or not is another question.

The problem, however, is that there is also an odd sense of mean-spiritedness which exists as a hidden undercurrent at the company. It does not come out in every employee, and I think that the GM of my department through most of the time I was there was probably the least mean-spirited guy I have enver seen in any company, but it is a part of the corporate culture. You would not believe how many Microsoft employees might ordinarily vode democrat but voted to elect Sen. Gordon simply because Cantwell was coming from a competing company (Real Networks). Never mind the fact that she might actually understand the industry. One guy even told me that he could not in good conscience vote to elect an executive from a competitor to public office. And you would not beleive the flack I got because before I was hired, I had migrated my parents to a Linux desktop and did not want to bring them back into the fold of Microsoft software (yes they still run Linux, and no they are not nerds or techies).

Similarly, the level of mean-spiritedness I watched seemed to go up as one ascended the management chain though there were plenty of exceptions. I knew several people who ended up in GM positions who really were great people to work for and with, and were entirely procompetitive. Sadly I also saw many more people who were fundamentally meanspirited (even if they did not at first appear this way) who were promoted as well.

Now, I was not ill-informed as to the nature of this aspect of Microsoft corporate culture when I was hired. I had read essentially all of the court documents both regarding Caldera v. Microsoft and USDoJ v. Microsoft. And I largely accepted the employement at first due to the fact that I did not have another job lined up when my term came to an end. In other words, it was clear to me that a large percentage of senior execs (including Gates and Ballmer) were of this category of employees, and that this was a large part of what catylized this attitude in the company.

During my time at Microsoft, I worked tirelessly to improve Microsoft software and business practices. My contributions were nearly all procompetitive. Among ideas first floated by me:
1) One has to stop thinking of Exchange and Sendmail as competitors (as a result of this email, a POP3 server was added to Windows Server 2003).
2) If you are going to Linuxworld, at least take the one product (SFU) that Linux guys might find interesting.
3) SFU should ship with the operating system.
4) If you can't provide SSH, at least provide a telnet server which uses Kerberos to encrypt the session (don't know the status on this one, but I believe it may be forthcoming)

I don't know where my other suggestions so I will not mention them here. However, I will say that I had suggested a very aggressive competitive approach aimed at materially reducing the number of safe markets for Linux and FreeBSD. I would not be surprised if Microsoft continues to impliment other suggestions I made.

Re:"Microsoft regrets

[steelfood]

Antitrust law doesn't expire in 2007, only close government supervision does.

You are right. Having a monopoly isn't something the government can regulate; being a monopoly is not against the law. Companies can't just sue another company for being successful. It is only when Microsoft engages in unfair business practices where they use the advantages of their monopoly status that it becomes an issue of antitrust. But whether to sue them under antitrust laws is up to the government, specifically the attorney general (antitrust is a civil matter, not a criminal one).

That largely depends on the administration in office. Sure future antitrust violations will be dealt with more harshly. If they never get sued by the government, the only thing that'll happen is that they'll pay some large sum in fines to a bunch of small or already-dead companies and go about their merry way. And even if the DOJ does get involved, well Microsoft received a large fine the last time, setting the precedent to fine them even more (yes, it can be argued that fines aren't enough, but then again, that was argued for this case too and Microsoft was still largely fined). Anyhow, this administration is likely not going to act and we know little to nothing about the next one. Yet the settlement conveniently expires before then. By the time the next administration comes around to suing them again for unfair business practices, they'd have bought up all the so-called victims and the prosecution wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on except for Microsoft's history. And all Microsoft would need to ask then in defense is where the prosecution's witnesses are.

Once they're out from under the microscope, it doesn't give them free reign to do as they please, but it does loosen their chains considerably.

Already there are over 100 antitrust suits against them winding their way though a multidistrict panel

And there have been countless antitrust suits and unfair business practices suits before that. What really is litigation to Microsoft? Just part of the cost of doing business. Microsoft has been engaged in this business model for a very long time. Everyone sues Microsoft. Microsoft either settles with them for some amount of money, or loses, and is fined some amount of money. To Microsoft, these fines and suits are looked at like their utility bills.

Which is one reason I no longer work there.

I would work for Google too if given the choice. They get free food. :p