Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Faces Fresh Antitrust Complaints
Rob wrote to mention a Computer Business Online review piece about new anti-trust action against Microsoft on both sides of the Atlantic. From the article: "Other examples of anticompetitive behavior cited by Tangent include bundling of Outlook with Office and Active Directory with Windows Server, as well as the bundling of Windows Media Player and Windows Media Server with its desktop and server operating system respectively. Microsoft did not respond to a request for comment on Tangent's complaint, other than to acknowledge that it was being reviewed, but was more forthcoming in responding to a fresh complaint lodged with the European Commission by the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS)."
can someone explain to me why people care about windows media player being bundled with windows? i could maybe understand internet explorer, maybe. but wmp? what?
if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
...te?
Don't you have to buy Office and, thus, buy an office suite? One that would, presumably, include email and calendar functionality?
Can't you purchase Office modules separately? I was sure I had seen boxes of Word, Excel, etc. a few years back.
What are they going to do? Fine them? - it is already well known that you can not fine them enough to make it feasible for them to stop these practices. MS has moved above the law of any land. I feel the only hope is OSS as a groundswell, this the only way to solve the current software stagnation that is around today.
Stay tuned for new sig...
Remember we started the present suit against M$ in 2001...5 years later we see no change!
Like any good slashdotter, I have my complaints with Microsoft too, but this is getting out of hand. Active Directory? WTF are they thinking?
1st post!
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
If suing is how Tagent treats it's Certified Partners, I would hate to be their enemy.
What else is new...
It's amazing how people critisize MSFT about having so many vista versions. Stuff like this makes it super obvious why they have to release so many versions.
There is antitrust action against Linux bundling GNU software...oh well.
about new anti-trust action against Microsoft on both sides of atlanta
... the living hell outta ... ;)
Now thats what i call suing left and right
Stop bundling shit with your OS. Sell the OS and separately the add-ons.
...) should de-bundle as well. At least most distros (debian, gentoo, ...) are neutral and allow the USER to CHOOSE what they want to use.
... you can't just bundle more and more with the OS and hope nobody notices in the name of the almighty dollar.
Christ almighty is it really that fucking hard?
For the record I think any other OS (e.g. SUSE or Redhat) that aligns with one technology or another (e.g. mysql or gnome or
But seriously MSFT execs just don't fucking get it. This isn't 1989
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Bundling software isn't anti-competitive behaviour unless there's something else going on, like forcing computer manufacturers to bundle that software with their computers.
Nobody is forced to use Active Directory when they set up a Windows server, although most people do because it makes sense. Honestly, as someone who's not worked with large linux networks, I'm not sure what the alternative would be. However, lack of a viable alternative, or even lack of a popular alternative, doesn't make Microsoft wrong for packaging Active Directory with their product.
Bundling Outlook with Office may be slightly closer to anti-competitive behavior, but I still think it's a BS complaint. I know plenty of people that choose to use Netscape Navigator, Eudora, or Thunderbird for email, even though they own the Office suite. Wouldn't complaining about Outlook Express make a little more sense, since it's packaged with the OS?
This reminds me of people playing the race card... it's done even when that complaint isn't accurate, and as a result makes people less likely to believe when there's a REAL issue.
What's next... claiming that inclusion of MS Paint is anti-competitive?
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
How the hell can Microsoft be expected to sell it's OS without any extras while the other companies selling OSs bundle all sorts of shiat with them. OS X comes with Quicktime 7, Safari, Apple Mail, and the whole iLife thing. Those are all types of things that Microsoft has been threatened with a lawsuit because it includes them in Windows. Apple takes it a step further and bundles their hardware with their software. If Microsoft did something like that, they'd be driven out of the country by screaming zealots. Why can't people just leave them be for once?
*The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best - and therefore never scrutinize or question.*
out of hand to the point of sheer stupidity. Certain gripes I can see as far as the bundling of IE with Windows. To start a complaint about directory services being bundled with server software is lunacy. Outlook being bundled with M$ Office? Oh the humanity! I wouldn't expect to pay $500 for a full office suite without a fully functioning email client/calendering system. Enough is enough. Now that it has gotten to this point any further "legitimate" claims will be dismissed as frivolous and unjustified.
Active directory and Media Server also just "make sense". If you're selling a server solution, shouldn't you build in server features?
I think there's some argument for Media Player, except that the success of iTunes as a WMP alternative shows that there is substantial competition in the market.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
I can't view my porn when insesitive sites put up wmv 10 videos. :)
The only valid point that I thought the article made had to do with Word documents. It's no secret that interpretting Word documents is haphazard at best (just look at OpenOffice) and that standards need to be documented more thoroughly. Almost everything else in that article seemed like nit picking, and for once I feel bad for Microsoft.
They can't win: if they include Windows Media Player with their OS they get sued, if they don't include it they get hundreds of thousands of complaints from users and even more Microsoft bashing than before. If they include Active Directory with their OS they get sued, if the don't include it they get thousands of complaints from administrators and even more Microsoft bashing than before. The list goes on and on. As for Outlook being bundled with Office, I think that since Office is a suite consumers pay for (either in retail channels or through OEMs), Microsoft should be able to include what it wants to. Outlook is part of the suite, plain and simple.
Next week's top story: "TextPad Sues Microsoft for Bundling Notepad with its Windows Operating System"
-William Brendel
The latest news is that, according to Yahoo! News and BBC News, a fresh anti-trust complaint has been filed with the EC against Microsoft by the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (composed of IBM, Oracle, RealNetworks, Sun & Nokia). Although the complaint was filed privately, ECIS hinted (see the links) that it related to MS Office.
The story here is about Tangent, a computer manufacturer who filed a federal suit against MS in a Northern Californian court on Valentine's Day. I've found two articles which go into more detail on this: Gameshout and ZDNet.
Basically, the complaints in this suit relate to:
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
I love this line from Tangent's site...
Tangent recommends Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional.
nothing
Hey why don't you list what features you want .. submit them to M$FT or OpenOffice or whoever?
.. build off Open Office or the tons of other open source software that's out there.
.. don't F'ing buy it. I personally want everything to come with my OS. Just like I want my car to come with leather seats, and a vanity mirror. Oh, and I dont have a prob with Ford bundling paint on their cars either.
Better yet, start your own company
Is there some missing features you need? Are you being blocked from developing these features?
Also, how come microsoft is he only one to to get in trouble for bundling? If you are annoyed by an operating system coming with a bunch of software
Note, if this was MacOS the fanboys would be up in arms about wrongful persecution of a benevolent corporation.
GM has been accused of bundling engines with transmissions, Pioneer has been accused of bundling speakers with stereo equipment and, Bob's big boy has been accused of bundling plates with silverware.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Blame Wall Streets/Capitalisms retarded idea that companies have to "grow" infinitely (in a finite world), even monopolies are still demanded by the "markets" to "grow" making a billion dollars a minute and having your fingers in a multitude of pies isn't good enough, next year you have to make a billion*2 and so on like a logarithmic curve
of course its going to get worse as we live in a finite world, when acquisitions and mergers finally result in 2 companies on this planet that sell everything vertically and horizontally Wall.St wont be happy
dont hate the players, hate the game
How come Apple never get stung with this? Surely they bundle QuickTime with OS X?
WHY does everybody keep talking about Microsoft monopolies, then talking about Explorer, Outlook, and... everything but the OS?
Nobody is forced to use Explorer (even if it is a part of the OS). Nobody is forced to use Outlook, Active Directory, or WMP.
What we ARE forced to put up with as software engineers (if we want to actually sell any units) is their OS! Mac users and some expert PC gurus running Linux aside, Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS market. If we in the US are so anti-monopoly (and there's a lot of precedent -- Standard Oil, Ma Bell etc), why haven't we broken up this one by making the OS open-source and allowing MS to continue as it pleases with its other products (which don't force anyone to use them.)
I can't be the only one to see this -- but I just don't get why people keep talking about the big, bad Microsoft monopoly -- then looking right PAST the one thing they *do* have a monopoly on. It's all very confusing to me.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
So let's see, we're complaining now because Windows comes with more programs for us to use? What the hell is wrong with these people? I've seen too many anti-trust suits like this.
I could rant, really; but I'll put this simply enough: It's nice when you get software bundled with the system; it's anticompetetive when the system is designed to detect competing software and prevent it from running properly. Until the second case is true, this is all bullshit and these lawyers need to find a new hobby.
Next week, Canonical gets sued for shipping Ubuntu with Firefox instead of Opera; Novell gets sued for shipping GNOME instead of KDE; and the XFCE guys sue everyone because nobody uses their desktop environment.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
an anti-trust action for bundling outlook in a suite of office programs??? what next, an anti-trust action against adobe for bundling photoshop in its creative suite package? disclaimer: i haven't read the article in question :S
.. and that doesn't even include inline AV and Anti-Spyware. With Stats like that how can you avoid Anti-Trust Complaints?
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
You may no longer bundle radios or air conditioning in cars. Also, spare tires are illegal.
You may no longer bundle popsicle sticks in with popsicles.
You may no longer bundle instructions with any piece of equipment.
There has to be more to the story. IANAL, but "bundling" software is nothing new, and certainly shouldn't be considered wrong. How can you differentiate "bundling software" from including features? For instance Winamp can now do far more than just play media. Are the ripping features, the burning features, etc, now "bundled"? When did a law get passed saying software can only do one thing?
Maybe Microsoft should remove the branding. Word is no longer word. Excel is no longer excel. It is simply Microsoft Office, and the seperate executables are simply "features".....
Why not sue the EU pigs for their illegal coercive monopoly over the citizens of Europe?
Maybe, but it still doesn't force you to install Outlook. I seem to recall that the installer allowed you to install, provisionally install, or not install each component separately. So you could by the cheaper version which included the programs you don't want and just unselect those components during the install.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
I can buy all three seperate, or I can save money and get the package. I fail to see a problem.
They can't win: if they include Windows Media Player with their OS they get sued, if they don't include it they get hundreds of thousands of complaints from users and even more Microsoft bashing than before. If they include Active Directory with their OS they get sued, if the don't include it they get thousands of complaints from administrators and even more Microsoft bashing than before. The list goes on and on.
Well, if they HADN'T INCLUDED all those nice add-ons in the beginning, NO ONE would have complained nor sued. Why? Because they built A GIGANTIC user base over those bundles. Precisely the amount of people's complaints will demonstrate how much they have cheated.
More like M$ will buy time, and then package it into M$ Office with their calendar. Now some will probably sue over the anti-trust issues with packaging time together with software that tracks it, but given their track record, I'm pretty sure M$ can get away with it.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
iPod bundles a video player with their mp3 player. Thus preventing people from choosing a different vendor. Just like how Microsoft is "forcing" people to not choose a different email program.
.. Look at all the "non OS" stuff that came with Mac OS in the 1980's. I'm not saying it's bad .. but it's now forgotten that everyone did it. It's just that M$FT gets hated for it.
Apple has been bundling software with their OS since I can remember
I loved this part:
"ECIS is a front for IBM and a few other competitors who constantly seek to use the regulatory process to their business advantage. When faced with innovation, they choose litigation,"
Which screams out the need for this obligatory quote from Inigo Montoya:
Microsoft: "INNOVATION!"
Rest of World: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
No matter where you go... there you are.
One of the good things about slashdot is that every time someone says "Microsoft!" you know there will be an abundance of words not suitable for use in public.
It's the only thing stable about the OS.
Now where have I heard that name?
We are going to end up with one set of rules Microsoft will have to follow and another for everyone else.
Then anytime some company with connections wants to find an excuse for their piss poor software or lack of success in the marketplace they will turn to blaming Ms.
It is already approaching the point to where the consumer is suffering for the meddling. Either hold all companies, regardless of marketshare, to the same standards or get out of the regulation. (unfortunately the EU governing body will meddle in anything just because it can, talk about a body that serves no other purpose than to make laws to justify its existance. What it took 200+ years for the US Congress to morph in the EU did in a short 10 years)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Somebody needs to put the lawyers & CXO's on a shorter leash and focus on what matters - being competive because your stuff works better.
Heyyas,
.doc format from wordpad is incompatible with real word formats, with rtf, with open office.
The problem seems all the "integrated" components cannot be easily removed from the heapOdung called windows, I want to use alternative media player which is being constantly developped, features added, stability improved, UI extended. That is not the case with most of m$ software,
"Integration" in m$ crappy policy means having a shitty underdeveloped product sold anyway in the same amount as not so bad windows sells. Look outlook express, ie, wmp, wordpad, would have no more chance to exist over w95 era if they were not bundled. And for most crappy shit machine called ie you cant even remove from os without breaking the explorer.exe.
Look, What are the functional points of explorer.exe that could break when removing ie. Loosing the possibility to enter urls in explorer.exe? noone uses it as it gets by default the stupid folder tree and that is of no use in net eh? any more func points that could break from removing ie? I dont see them.
As for wmp the story is similar and different, People loose chance to download or get on magazine cd the better player with more features, better performance, no nags about the hottest movie from hollywood. Look, people wouldnt have to get those crappy cant donwload codec or similar shit as in wmp, or you stream the movie and you only get the crappy sound, bill gates forgot to integrate the proper codecs with wmp. He forgot to inform you that codecs are available and you havent got them. And you have payed for something that looks good on first view and after 10 uses makes you angry at yourself and others.
Well and third, a wordpad isnt worth a mention. Some greens use this crap and cant open in other editors because crappy closed
Some fluffy comments and some useful ones.
because this european complaint addresses the lack of documentation for Office formats.
About friggin' time, I'd say.
If MS did buy up SCO licenses to prop up SCO's legal fight against other Linux vendors that should count too. That they tried to quash Linux is enough in my view. They should be broken into a million tiny little parts.
We have to remember, it took the U.S. Government almost 50 years to get the Bell System to agree to the Kingsbury Consent. And they were hit again in the 50's and the final nail hit in the 80's. By then the company was a hundred years old.
But today we live in the information age. I suspect Microsofts demise will come much more quickly than it did for the reigning giant of the 20th century.
Umm thats easy:'feeding at the legal trough'
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Is this product tying, or merely product bundling? Why should Microsoft be liable for antitrust complaints if they merely bundle products together for sale, but give you the choice of which components you actually want to install? This is in stark contrast to Windows/IE...
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Wow, do you honestly believe that the US government would force MS to make Windows open source? Do you really believe that anybody outside of slashdot and the 'OSS community' gives a shit about OSS? Forcing MS to reveal its trade secrets would cause uproar in the business world.
Bundling Outlook with Office may be slightly closer to anti-competitive behavior, but I still think it's a BS complaint.
Not only that, it doesn't make sense. Outlook isn't bundled with Office, it is part of Office (some would say that it's the main part) and has been since Office 97. Complaining 9 years later about "bundling" Outlook with Office is akin to complaining that MS is "bundling" Excel with Office. This is stupid.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Which is one that MS would like to be the issue. The problem isn't Windows Media Player, but that there is bundled an application that handles the Microsoft-only format WMA. And handles the Microsoft-only DRM. It *can* handle other media, but there is a built-in advantage for WMA because
a) MS don't have to pay for a license
b) It is there by default on 90% of desktops
If WMA was just a media player that had other people's codecs installed and MS didn't have their own codec, or they licensed under BSD (which they like) the codec and patents, there would be no issue - MS would not be using the 90% desktop to get them an unfair advantage in media serving (a niche they have little penetration in and has very little to do with desktop machines).
MS could have used the Ogg formats, mpeg, avi, etc and abandoned WMA.
They won't, so there is a problem with bundling the application that plays this: WMP.
Am I the only one who saw "Microsoft Feces" when first reading the headline?
Because the whole reason Media Player is packaged with windows is so microsoft can dominate digital audio/video formats. In other words, it's the audiovisual equivalent of their browser monopoly.
On the main article, don't forget South Korea. Microsoft is basically using the same anti-trust avoidance tactics that they've always used. They're taking advantage of the slowness of individual legal systems, so that when their tactics are ruled illegal in one place, they can continue to work toward dominance elsewhere.
They have $40B+ in cash, that they are desperately trying to funnel into the pockets of their executives (since they are certainly not using it to improve their products). How best to do this? The anti-trust shuffle. You split the company; assets fly everywhere, expenses related to the re-organization generate more transactions than the IRS can check in 10 years, shareholder value adjustments are made (stock re-purchased, re-valued, re-issued), and by the time all is said and done, new golden parachutes for everyone! Surprisingly, the $40B+ cash reserve will have been "consumed" in the re-structuring.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
Removing this packages may break(partially) the upgrade process, but your current installation will continue to work perfectly. This is not the case if you try to remove IE from windows (I don't know about media player).
Worst case, you reinstall the whole distro when a new version comes out instead of doing an upgrade. But I'm sure an upgrade with Ubuntu will be a lot less complicated than doing an upgrade that's works with Windows...
Upgrades in Windows are always broken, upgrades in Ubuntu will be partially broken if you remove a particual package that is not so hard to reinstall, and you still complain...
Windows is a blassing to some, a pain to others, and it's everywhere (often not by choice), but that by itself is not illegal (as I understand it). Microsoft can continue to have a monopoly on desktop operating systems and still operate within the law.
However, using that monopoly to leverage other products in other product areas *is* a violation of existing anti-trust laws, both in the US and in the EU (as well as many other places like Japan, South Korea, etc.).
That is why these stories keep on being brought up, and why these discussions exist. When MS is accused of doing something in violation of the law, it makes news, and it also has a fairly good chance of impacting common users (mainly by reducing choice).
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
- Logitech files an antitrust suit against Dell for packaging keyboards and mice with their computers.
- Goodyear files an antitrust suit against Ford for packaging tires with their vehicles.
- A tissue cloning lab files an antitrust suit against God for packaging internal organs with humans.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
The fact that Microsoft has been legally classified as a "monopoly" in the desktop OS space is absolutely critical to the criticisms and lawsuits that have subsequently been levelled at them.
If you fail to acknowledge this one simple fact, you'll NEVER understand the situation w.r.t. Microsoft and illegal bundling/leveraging.
Sorry for the tone, but this has been repeated ad Nauseum for YEARS and people still seem to be sticking their fingers in their ears about it. Whether you disagree or not simply isn't relevant in the eyes of the law. Don't like it? Vote folks in who will change the law.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Why not use a different kernel then? Linux etc. If the consumer asks for Windows .. they are asking for the whole experience. Otherwise give them Linux. Or, an OEM could fund the development of their own OS. Why do it on my and microsoft's nickel? When I buy windows, I don't want to be forced to just buy a kernel and be inconvenienced having to find, buy, and install my own basic programs some of which I'd hardly ever use. What next, Mercedes sued for forcing car dealers to bundle rims, vanity mirrors, leather seats, or a particular paint with the cars?
.. surely that prevents custom rim sellers?
Paint aren't even a functional part of the car. Bundling rims
GM have been awarded the contract for building all roads.
All roads signs in the future will include a 'Designed for GM' logo.
It is believed that GM will license the new roads to the other car manufacturers, though technology insiders say it is unlikely that their competitors will be able to compete effectively with GM because of their closely guarded knowledge of the structure of the road surface.
All forms of public transport will be denied access to the new roads.
A government spokesman with a large bulging attache case and a broad smile announced the move at a press conference stating that 'this is a great day for the motorist'.
The move comes hot on the heels of recent share increases for the company as the markets reacted favourably to GM's 'inspired' cost savings stemming from the downsizing of their engineering and safety departments.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
This is such a tiresome subject.
Let them bundle whatever the hell they want.
If people want to install other software that they think is better, they can.
When microsoft starts denying users to install software, then I'll join in the outrage.
Less is more
Move sig!
nuf said
I posted this deep in a conversation, so I'll repost it. The matter at hand is not whether or not you thing its a legitimate business practice for Microsoft to bundle products. The legal issues are far more limited than that. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, so its business practices are very, very tightly controlled under anti-trust regulations. The rules that apply to Microsoft are very different than the rules that apply to say, Apple, or Sun, or IBM. When you've been convicted of having an illegal monopoly, you have to abide by certain rules, or face legal action. If you disagree with this, the proper place to register complaints is with congress, not the courts. The courts have to make judgements on the existing legal framework, and under this framework Microsoft is not permitted certain business practices that would be perfectly fine for anyone else.
Bundling by a monopolist is considered "tying". Tying is illegal under the Sherman Anti-trust act.
Vertical tying is the practice of requiring customers to purchase related products or services from the same company. For example, a company's automobile only runs on its own proprietary gas and can only be serviced by its own dealers. In an effort to curb this, many jurisdictions require that warranties not be voided by outside servicing; for example see the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in the United States. More recently, video game consoles run only software licensed by the console manufacturer and use lockout chips to enforce this.
Microsoft ties together Microsoft Windows, Internet Explorer, and Outlook Express.
Tying may be the action of several companies, as well as the work of just one firm.
It was first made potentially illegal in the United States by the Sherman Antitrust Act (section 1) if the firm has market power in the tying good, and a "non-trivial" amount of business is affected by the tying. See International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392 (1947).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying
At issue is not whether or not this is a reasonable law; but whether or not Microsoft has violated it.
A) Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
B) Microsoft ties its products together.
C) Tying of its products affects a substantial number of businesses
D) The DoJ settlement did not measurably reduce Microsoft's market power.
Therefore, a new antitrust case is in order.
If you disagree, don't argue about the courts; they are just doing their job. Congress will have to pass some legislation either revoking the Sherman AntiTrust act, or specifically exempting Microsoft.
Regardless of whether or not you support Microsoft, you should support the rule of law. If you believe that Microsoft should be permitted to tie products together, you should be writing your congress man, not bitching about federal courts.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Monopolies are not illegal, wrong, or persecuted.
What is illegal, and wrong is abusing a monopoly position to obtain dominance in another area.
This is why Microsoft are being penalised (for example when they gave IE away for free in order to kill off Netscape) and Google, who are not abusing their monopoly are not being penalised.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
The issue is not really the player, but the codecs included with it.
Microsoft has monopoly power in the market for desktop operatings systems. No, not the absolute monopoly that pedants like to shout about; that's a theoretical construct that never occurs in the real world. What the law, the courts, and economists call monopoly power is having such a strong position in the market that you can get away with actions that would cause a loss of business in a competitive market.
Monopolies are legal. But it is illegal to use monopoly power in one area to create a monopoly in another area. It is illegal to use monopoly power to suppress competition and perpetuate the monopoly.
Microsoft is using their control over the vast majority of desktops to push the use of Microsoft codecs for multimedia. In other words, they are using their monopoly power in the desktop OS market to attempt to create a new monopoly in the market for multimedia devices. Think portable players, or set top TV boxes. Or servers to deliver that content.
No one would care about Windows Media Player if it didn't come bundled with Microsoft proprietary codecs. For example, there is a level playing field for MPEG; everyone can license the codecs from a third party, and using MPEG audio or video doesn't lock you into any single vendor. Microsoft is free to create and sell their own codecs, but those codecs must compete on their own merits, not because they were bundled with Windows.
Again, it is legal for Microsoft to hold a monopoly on desktops. It is legal for Microsoft to try to capture control over other markets. But they con't use the monopoly to do it. They can own a gun, but they can't point it at anyone.
One word. Bullshit.
Ok, I happen to like Microsoft, and use 2K server. I see AD as a server, and wouldn't have purchased the OS and PC to go with it, if it was missing.
Ok, I bought the $300 office suite, because:
a) I like it
or
b) I've never heard of OO.o
? WHAT THE F**K!?!? IF YOU DONT F**King LIKE IT, DON'T F***King BUY IT! IF YOU DON'T F**KING LIKE IT, DONT F**KING USE IT! Ok, I'm done now. All these Anti-trust things are BS pitched by companies who are losing. Sucks for you.
You expect Microsoft to put Netscape in Windows? If you want Netscape, go download it. http://www.netscape.com/ Here. Go ahead. I've never seen Microsoft stop anybody. FF doesn't just stop working on my computer, with an ominous MS popup. I thought a monopoly stopped people. If MS sucks so much, how did they get on so many PCs? If you don't like Microsoft, use Debian. It's free
People who use Microsoft products either like them, or don't care. If you don't like it, you're not using it. And if you do use it, you're stupid. Just simple. So, you don't like something and don't want to use it, don't go out and buy it, install it, choose to install it (when you're given the choice), and then complain about it, and go so far to sue (!) about it. You know, you could choose "Uninstall", right? Or do you just want money?
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Why does anyone care what MS does or doesn't bundle with their OS? There's much more functionality embedded in any Linux distro than Windows; Ubuntu, for example, comes with an office suite, Outlook equivalent, media player(s), etc. etc.
The real problems with the MS monopoly are their complete disregard for standards, and thus, interoperability, and consumers' complete lack of choice of an OS when buying new PCs. If the government were to mandate some Goddamn interoparability standards/requirements for MS, and stop their insane arrangements with PC manufacturers. Then, manufacturers would then give customers a choice of OS when they were, say, customizing their new Dell, similar to the way they can presently save money by choosing less RAM, hard disk space, etc. Under these conditions, the monopoly would surely disintegrate. Joe Sixpack might see that getting Linux with his computer would be $100 cheaper; Linux itself, moreover, would be capable of enough interoperability to meet his needs; everyone's happy; MS is marginalized, as it is not able to provide comparable services to [F/OSS OS of your choice] at a comparable price.
Yay, capitalism.
It's not illegal to have a monopoly. Using it to hamper free competition is.
If you have an OS monopoly, bundling a web browser with it (raising the OS price accordingly) makes it impossible to compete for others who make web browsers (unless the product of the monopolist is absolute crap).
If you have a monopoly on office suites, bundling mail software with it (raising the price accordingly) makes it impossible for other mail software vendors to compete.
If you had a monopoly on cars, supplying free gas with a car ((raising the price accordingly) makes it impossible to compete.
Etcetcetc.
IMHO, bundling products is not Microsoft's most egregious anticompetitive behavior. Not by far.
Patenting the Office XML schema and the FAT file system have got to be up there.
Forcing people to buy a copy of Windows with every new computer is pretty bad too. Declaring that it's illegal to resell such a copy (because it's bound to the PC), and then saying you have to pay for it all over again if you upgrade the motherboard is the icing on the cake.
Why do all the antitrust suits focus on bundling?
You know, I think we should sue them for including NTOSKRNL too, since that's clearly a violation.
I caught this off the newswire yesterday, and was pleased to see that Novell were veering away from this one thankfully, since it's frankly moronic.
Bundling AD? oh dear god the world is falling apart, perhaps M$ should start filing suits against companies that bundle in LDAP, this is getting really tiresome now.
If it's the server package, then it's not really much of a sodding server if you strip off the server capabilities, all you're left with then is XP with a Server sticker slapped on it (sorry if I just made somebody's world fall apart).
Some of the antitrust crap has had merit, but this is getting embarassing now.
Assuming things haven't changed since then, there's definitely something wrong with that pricing model.
Not at all. Compare the price of a 20 oz soda bottle with a two liter. Typically, the two liter is the same price.
1st post!
WTF are [you] thinking?
What kind of idiot are you giving them ideas like that!
As if things weren't expensive enough.
"Ah yes, you DID buy the Windows 2010 framework for only $50 retail! Now, in order to run the file explorer, you'll need the file explorer plugin--that's $2."
"You want to watch video files? $1 per codec."
etc etc etc.
Windows is aimed at the average user, not the guy who is going to recompile his own kernel because he doesn't need USB support.
On a Mac, or in Linux, you can swap out the parts. Don't like QT? it can be easily uninstalled. Ditto iTunes. Same with Safari, and Mail, and AppleWorks. You can uninstall all of those and replace them without problems. And they all have free alternatives.
I've replaced Mail and Safari and stuck them on a backup disk in case I change my mind. I like iTunes and QuickTime (but VLC is growing on me) and Appleworks is smaller/nimbler than NeoOffice (which I also have). Heck, one could replace the Dock if they felt like it, and I have replaced my Finder. You can do that on Linux too, although it probably takes a bit more work. Try doing that on Windows, and everything will either break, or you'll be called a pirate..
What's next... claiming that inclusion of MS Paint is anti-competitive?
Exactly. I see AD as an integral part of Windows Server, and although I usually opt to use other media players, I think it makes good sense to include WMP with Windows. True, it does put competing products at a disadvantage, but I as a customer wouldn't want to have to obtain third-party products just to do simple things like viewing images or web pages. As long as alternative products are able to work with the system to the same degree as Microsoft's offerings, I see no problem. Bundling small apps with the OS and increases the value of the system to the average user. If Microsoft is guilty of this, then how much moreso are *BSD and Linux distros?
/* begin sarcasm */ I was starting to worry about M$ for a bit there, they hadn't had any /. articles questioning something M$ related or other for a few weeks here - nice to know they haven't decided to do the proper thing and become a company that at least *tries* to stay out of lawsuits... /* end sarcasm */
I think ppl like Tangent have to realize that the users are not idiots and will use whatever the hell comes with thier computers. My computer came with Windows Media Player, IE and Outlook Express but guess what.. I use winamp, firefox and thunderbird.
I think these guys just wanna make a quick buck. Users have the opportunity to just buy Word and Excel seperately if they want to. They have an option NOT to include Outlook.
Additionally, what I don't get is that I did a search online for Tangnet Inc and I found this company: http://www.tangent.com/products/index.htm/ They are a MS Partner.
In a filing with the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Tangent claimed Microsoft continues to engage in anticompetitive conduct and has caused it damages by "increasing, maintaining or stabilizing the price [Tangent] paid for Microsoft's operating system software above competitive levels."
So what are they doing? Increasing or maintaining or stabilizing the price? Make up your minds.
Tangent claimed relief under the Sherman Act and cited recent US Department of Justice and European Commission criticism of Microsoft's failure to provide third parties with relevant technical documentation, as evidence that the company continues to prevent interoperability with non-Windows systems.
umm.. MS is a software company, and all its software runs on windows, why should it care about its products running on Linux? Its like saying GM is not providing enough tech info so that I can make my car inter operate with Toyota
... I want every microsoft product bundled for free with Windows. Am I alone in this? I don't want to have to install windows, download a browser, download or install an office suite, download or install an email client, download or install a chat client, download or install CD burning software or download or install streaming media software.
I remember the dark ages of streaming media, when I had to install that festering pile of stink called Real Player on my computer and every other computer I knew of, so that they could get the full web experience.
When Windows boots for the first time, there should be a full suite of "Good enough" software to at least operate in the short term until I can replace it with something I might like better.
As I see it I can either:
A) Boot up with no software, which forces me to download everything.
B) Boot up with crappy software that gets the job done.
I choose the latter. Knowing it doesn't matter what windows XP machine on earth I'm on, I'll have a media player and a chat client is a huge plus in my mind.
...enough is enough. If you want to fight Microsoft go make a better distribution of Linux to compete with them and quit crying every time Microsoft bundless some software. Its called offering a competitive product. Microsoft has competition in the way of Apple and Linux. Its up to the industry to offer a better alternative, its not up to the government to beat Microsoft with the litigation stick every time they think Microsoft's stock is getting too valuable. You, yeah you, go and build a better product and then don't sell out when Bill knocks on your door.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
Microsoft Faces Fresh Antitrust Complaints
That's good, the other ones were getting stale.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
...because they haven't been legally found to be a monopoly, thus they get to play by different rules. That's the way the law works.
Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.
People seem to just look for an excuse to nark on Microsoft. When I install an OS, frankly I'd rather have my essentials right then. Any consumer wouldn't be in their right mind to say "No I'd rather go buy some from some website or something." - Sure, when I install Windows I go and pick up Firefox, then follow with Zoomplayer, but that's my personal preference. My sister would be content with Windows Media Player.
Microsoft gives a starting ground, and it's up to the user to decide "I want more." - If the user does this, he can go tell Windows to associate whatever formats to whatever media. He can tell Windows to use Firefox instead of Internet Explorer. If what Microsoft provides is enough for the average computer user, then maybe whoever is selling their software should rethink their position compared to Microsoft's.
Microsoft should not be punished for attempting to make the average computer user's life easier. Linux bundles pretty much everything that Microsoft does (respectively different programs of course) - and I don't see Linux distro's getting flak for it.
I realize the pro-MS spin makes the issue confusing, but other than that what's so hard to understand? It's not the bundling that's illegal, is the use of a monopoly in one market (the desktop) to create a new monopoly in another market (audio and video formats).
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Why did you use one that's undocumented in the first place. Now you expect them to document it on their nickel? Why should they bother? Do you have docs on every part in your car? Do you get a list of screw sizes with your car? hmm did they even tell u the thickness of the seat cushion? Have to find out yerself huh?
And I thought Microsoft was bundling Office with Outlook...
Active Directory comes with Windows Server oh say it isn't so...
Bundled Windows Media Player server with Windows server, the horror of it all.
Sell someone a server and it does that, serve, sure beats that "server" that waited my table last night.
Yes Microsoft has done some underhanded illegal things, example gateway services for Netware an intrusive and possibly illegal product allowing multiple users to use one license. Forcing manufactures to bundle Windows with workstations, or face non-competive prices...
"Lighten up, Francis." --Sergeant Hulka / Stripes
Use of this quote has not approved of by the M.P.A.A. Overlords please erase all copies from your memory cells.
"We wanted to release our new World of Solitare game but Microsoft bundled their own version with the OS. We can't compete in a market like this."
-SA3Steve - Fake CEO of Blzzard
That's funny, I was able to get Outlook 2003 on its own and I have it running side by side with Office 2000. What breed of moron is making the claim that Outlook is bundled with Office? Sure, there are Office bundles but you can purchase every app on its own as well. You get a break by buying the bundle but what's anti-competitive about that?
I acutally use a PowerBook but I've always wondered why tying the iPod to the iTunes music store via Fairplay isn't a anti-trust violation too since they have the Windows market share in online music and MP3 players....Anyone smarter than me know why?? I have a Windows machine but can choose to use Outlook, Window Media Player etc, I am not forced to....Why isn't including QuickTime tied closely to OS X also the same thing.
This makes little sense to me.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
The problem isn't bundling directory services with the server. It's that the windows client comes pre-built with an Active Directory client. Because of the desktop monopoly, that client makes it easier to go with a Windows Server/AD combo than, say, a Novell Directory Server.
That's the kind of bundling that's illegal. They use their desktop monopoly to define a de-facto standard that only Microsoft Servers can work with. That's why the EU is demaning that they open up the protocols.
That's also why there's a problem with bundling Windows media codecs with the desktop OS. It's not a problem that they bundle a media player, it's a problem that the monopoly desktop system comes with codecs that nobody else can code to. Again, if they're going to bundle codecs with the monopoly desktop system, they should be required to publish how to work with them. No problem with their being there. Just the fact that nobody else's server systems can talk to them, and nobody else can build a competing client system that can support them (without often-imperfect reverse engineering).
It's really an easy issue. The EU has it (mostly) right. Just open up the client protocols and compete on the merits. Then there's no problem. Or unbundle. The only problem with the EU is if they'll allow MS to charge for the 'open' protocols and so exclude open source implementations. That wouldn't solve the problem, since open source is the only viable competitor out there.
And finally, if they hadn't broken the law, no government would likely be requiring them to open up anything. But they did. Grow up and face the punishment. Windows isn't going to go away because of a little competition. There are enough windows-only apps out there to keep Windows secure on a huge number of desktops for decades.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
NT
Comment of the year
Well, either they have increased the cost and hurt the consumer (who may not want to pay for the bundled apps), or they have used the 85% profit of their desktop to dump cheap exports to drive out other cmopanies. Either of which is wrong.
However, there are those, like yourself, who will say "these apps are free! That's great!" then if you are asked why XP has gone up in real terms will say "hey, you get all this neat stuff included that you didn't get before". The stuff you saud was free earlier is now why the cost has gone up. How can you add free stuff and yet increase the price?
No it doesn't force you to install outlook. But for some reason beyond me Windows update sure is persistant about wanting me to install updates for it despite it not being on my system in any form. I even went through and uninstalled outlook express and yet still it wants me to update it. [shrugs]
> I honestly don't understand the mindset Microsoft
> has that requires some "version" of "Windows" must
> have a music/video player on the same CD as the OS.
> Or an email program on the same CD as the OS. Or a
> web browser on the same CD as the OS. Or...
Because all competing operating systems do come bundled with a music/video player, email program and web browser. If Windows didn't, it would be the only operating system to come without this software bundled in.
Also keep in mind that the video viewing and audio replaying facilities are actually performed by an infrastructure within the OS that keeps track of codecs. You can make your own WMP with a simple function call. The only files you can't replay directly in WMP are RM and QT, because both Real and Apple refuse to write actual codecs that plug into the OS. Any codec that is appropriately installed into the OS' codec bank can be utilized by any third party software.
In fact. WMP can be compared to Notepad, since notepad is just a wrapper around a CTextarea (or whatever it is called) object. Are you going to sue Microsoft for including Notepad with the OS?
How about Windows Explorer? Once upon a time, there was a market for the likes of Norton File Management, or whatever it was called. But do you seriously want to be required to buy an extra product in order to manage your files?
And suing for bundling AD with the server product... hello? The server product is AD? Might as well sue Coca Cola for budling the container with the cola or the cola with the container. Or maybe I should sue Toyota for bundling seat belts with all new cars.
Suing for bundling Outlook with Office Suite? Excuse me, but Office Suite is a package deal. You can buy each product seperately. Yes, that would cost more, so they offer to sell all of the products in one package. Shift that to... buying a CD. Yes, you can buy 2-3 CD singles separately, but then you see a McMusic CD, which contains the 3 singles you wanted and 7 songs you didn't want. But the price equals only two CD singles, so who cares?
Someone get a grip!
When I saw the subject, I was almost certain there will be a lot of sympathetic postings.
should you really trust people to have options though. without the monopoly microsoft has with the media player, every jackass that buys a new emachines is going to have to go out and download a media player shortly after opening the box. with that need you're just going to have a large amount of inexperienced computer users downloading the first hits for "free media player" on google, and the end result is going to be millions more computers infected with spyware because they downloaded jimbo's media player (the one that had the most exclamation points in it's ad and came bundled with a free dancing monkey). it's become blatantly obvious that when given options for software people will use the most bloated shitware in existence, and so the majority of slashdot's readers will end up spending 20 hours a week cleaning spyware off of dumb relatives' computers. do yourselves a favor and back microsoft on this one, if it means fewer advances in technology because no one will develop a new media player because there isn't enough dough involved, so be it, take one for the team. in fact, if vista came bundled with p2p software, media player, virus protection, free dancing monkey and spyware removal the world would be a better place.
"Music Online" isn't really the market Apple's playing in, and they're only a few percent of the whole market.
I can take a Fairplay-protected song, burn it to a CD, rip it in Windows Media Player, and play it on a Rio. I can buy a CD with the music on it and rip it for any hardware. I can burn a song from Rhapsody and rip it for an iPod.
You're not locked in by music, at worst it's an inconvenience.
But I can't "rip" software from Windows and run it on UNIX or Mac OS, except by running Windows under emulation, or by emulating Windows (which is still far from practical for the average user, and enough of a moving target it probably will never be). THAT is why there's a difference - there's software you can't run at all without Windows, except through heroic measures. If you want to play music that's not available on Rhapsody on your Rio, you have dozens of easy options.
Windows Media Player bundled with Windows, and on the server as well, leaves the opportunity that someone would be less likely to download and install RealPlayer / Quicktime or some other media service/player.
I would rather see competition drive the needs instead of see lawyers making the choices for us.
Good answer. I'd mod you up if I could.
Move along, no sig to see here.
Microsoft's general counsel said "Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels. We've decided to open this up so people can understand the issues."
Also a ZDNet article, FSF berates apathy over Microsoft antitrust case , reports that the FSFE has criticised EU IT firms for not supporting the EC in its antitrust case against Microsoft.
ZDNet report that George Greve said in a blog entry that "[the] FSFE has been working on this case for many years, from the original investigation, over the 2004 decision, to the European Court case where it is now one of two [active] remaining third parties on the side of the European Commission. I only hope that more companies will help us defending their interests in this -- to this date, FSFE has received virtually no support for this case from the industry. Consequently, all the credit belongs to the free software community, including in particular the Fellows of the FSFE."
Greve also responds to the new EU complaint by ECIS applauding it, but pointing out that this may seem inconsistent as Microsoft has already reached individual settlements with ECIS members such as RealNetworks and Sun.
Also there is a good Guardian article from a few days ago which summarises and criticises recent rebuffs by MS to the EC's decision.
Also there is an entry on Tod Bishop's Microsoft Blog, Lessig advocates Microsoft , reporting that Lessig supports Microsoft's InfoCard project.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
The Word document format is barely even documented within Microsoft. Its design is a mess. If Microsoft employees have almost no hope of having it documented the rest of the world has no hope at all.
Developers: We can use your help.
It's always good to have choice in the software you install *ON* your operating system.
About your analogy: that's a good one.
So tell me: if you *BUY* a house, you want to replace the ugly aluminium kitchen sink with a nice steel one, and you discover it's bolted to the walls and pieces of it are wrapped around your gas water and electricity pipes so you'd have to saw them through to tear the thing out; how do you feel about your analogy now?
I rest my case.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Lets face it, consumers will use whatever it is thats put in front of them most of the time. If you include a bare OS, they will complain nothing is being included and will go to an OS that does include everything they need. If you include the programs that do the functionality the consumer asks for, then businesses say it's unfair. Therefore lets blame the consumer for being lazy. Sound fair?
My Gawd WTF...
...the Firefox Downloader with the blue "e" icon?
It's danged hard to actually get rid of, as is that stupid virus flypaper which everyone extols the calendaring features of and then nobody actually uses those features. One of my pet hates is the difficulty in driving a stake through the heart of these two security risks -- many "security" updates bring them back to haunt you afresh.
Likewise, I think EBay should be anti-trusted into the ground over how they're essentially forcing sellers to use PayPal now that they've bought the company.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
for you maybe-- evey time I setup a computer, I type in the same 5 words, with a colon and a perioda ndalone+site%3Aapple.com
I always get they standalone pretty readily...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=quicktime+st
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I don't want to embarass you, but...
the next time yer near an XP machine..
hit the button in the bottom right with a picture of the windows logo, and hit R
in the box that pops up, type in the word notepad, then hit the enter button
now hit Alt+o and look-- what is the last option listed?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Anybody want to place bets on the number of lawsuits that will pop up after Vista has been out for say... 2-3 years?
Microsoft can prevent all anti-trust and anti-competitive lawsuits if they license source code along with their products.
"Transparency begets mutual trust and respect"
Slashdot = Sarcasm
"A) Microsoft is a convicted monopolist."
I have to assume you're talking about US v. Microsoft, the IE/Netscape thing.
If you'd bothered to read the judgement, they settled without finding fault. In other words, no they were not convicted.
"FINAL JUDGMENT
(November 12, 2002)
WHEREAS, plaintiffs United States of America ("United States") and the States of New York, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina and Wisconsin and defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment;
AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment does not constitute any admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law"
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f200400/200457.htm
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
i like the expert pc users running linux comment in there. Im almost retarded and ive been running linux for years!
So how do I get it to use two different fonts on a page? Maybe I was not really clear about what I meant.
Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence