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)."
What happend to Standard Oil? It was dismantled and each component was forced to compete with the others. This is how we got: Esso, Exxon, Mobil, etc. (some have remerged by now, this happened 100 years ago)
Microsoft could be shattered into seperate companies. A Windows OS company. An Office productivity software company. A media player company (which would last about a fortnight). This is a real possibility.
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.*
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]
No, it couldn't, and no, it isn't. MS has far too much power and (more importantly) far too much money for such a thing to EVER happen. The opportunity was lost back in the 90s when Clinton called off the justice department actions in exchange for an endorsement of the clipper chip.
The only vulnerability faced by MS are a voting public that tires of ever-increasing taxes and millages to pay for MS software in the schools and the government offices. The student/home edition of MS software was released to squash what little resistance remained in even that arena.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
The EU's problem with the bundling of WMP is that Microsoft effectively killed competition in the market before the video player market had a chance to develop. Their accusation is that Microsoft was so effective at this because they are a monopoly. If they weren't a monopoly, they would have merely tied the success of the Windows product to the success of WMP and visa versa.
The result of Microsoft's abuse of power was that the leaders in the market (RealPlayer and Quicktime) effectively lost their places overnight, and the upstarts who were just starting to compete disappeared at the same time. (Remember when Quicktime was the defacto video player for multimedia programs, and RealPlayer was the defacto choice for streaming content?) From that perspective, the EU is correct. Microsoft wiped out an industry for one more Windows feature, and forced their player down everyone's throats. Note that improvements to the market stopped right there. There have been no significant changes to video players since Microsoft arrived on the market. The only company doing innovation in that area is Apple with their Quicktime product and their support of the Sorenson codecs.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Although their is no contradiction in them recommending MSW and suing MS about bundling and keeping the price artifically high. In fact, the opposite is true. If they didn't like MSW they would probably just sell free software OSs, and not care.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
No, quicktime didn't ever "suck", it was always quite good. But the argument you make about it being part of the O.S. can be applied to anything...
It started with things that really are a function of the O.S. (loading and running programs) and then started including things like editing text files and memory managers (which actually make sense for an OS) and evolved into including browsers and email clients (ie and outlook express). So now you want to include media player... and what else? Pretty soon Windows will cost $500 but come bundled with MS Office Suite, and people will be like "but isn't that the job of the O.S.? I mean, why would I buy a computer and not want a word processor and spreadsheet?"
The answer is you might want a word processor and spreadsheet. But then again, you might not. Who is to say everyone wants a media player? Why do people pay hundreds of dollars for an O.S. and then believe they got something for free?
To be fair, I wouldn't pay a damn nickel for anybody's media player. It started with Quicktime - a free download. RealPlayer... a free download. The problem is, like the browser, that MS gets THEIR software installed on virtually every windows machine, and so instead of formats competing on their merits, content authors use the MS formats. So MS doesn't just get it's software on your computer, they get to control the formats. Since you need their players to play the formats, they start doing things like monitoring what you watch, adding DRM, and other things that couldn't happen if someone didn't have a monopoly.
Yes, you are free to download other software (and I do!), but most people don't know enough about it.
Not that that is MS's problem; it's not their fault most users are stupid. So I'm not arguing for or against, but a media player is NOT an integral part of an operating system. I rarely use it. I probably use QT more often (trailers and such). I use Firefox. I use Thunderbird. I've NEVER EVER gotten a virus.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
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
[Qoute]WHY does everybody keep talking about Microsoft monopolies, then talking about Explorer, Outlook, and... everything but the OS?[/Quote]
.. You did business the way Microsoft wanted, or you couldn't compete with those who did.
..
Because, if you review the case history, or even just the old headlines from back when all of the Microsoft is an unfair Monopoly business became popular, there was a decision made from which everything else has followed.
What was that decision?
The business desktop operating system niche market qualifies as a natural monopoly. Because of interoperability and consistency requirements, all the legal beagles decided to agree that it made good business sense that a single product (or product line) would dominate, if not completely monopolize, the end user desktop operating system marketplace.
Natural monopolies are explicitly NOT against the law.
Abusing the possession of a natural monopoly in order to provide yourself an unfair advantage in other business ventures IS against the law. Abusing a natural monopoly in order to create undue profits directly from that monopoly is against the law.
All of the anti-monopoly cases against Microsfot have focused on that one aspect: Abuse of their natural monopoly position.
Offering contracts to PC manufacturers that reduce the cost per copy installed of the operating system but require the manufacturer to pay Microsoft for every machine built, not just the ones that have their operating system installed, was recognized as using the monopoly power to force greater net profits than is reasonably expected. After all, the contracts required that Microsoft be paid, literally, for nothing.
Nobody was required to enter these agreements you say? Well, manufacturers were able to demonstrate that failing to enter into this agreement meant their system prices would have to be elevated enough that people would buy the competitor machines, which had Microsoft's OS loaded under the conditions of the contract they wanted to avoid . .
Way back when, one of the recurring features in Dr. Dobb's Journal was an article detailing the "hidden" API for Microsfot Windows. Microsoft had a public, published API, and a private internal one. The public API did little besides rearrange arguments and build in a delay.
Amazingly enough, the Microsoft products which were NOT operating system based used the same private API as th eoperating system itself, while ALL COMPETING non-operating system products were "forced" (by ignorance created through Microsoft misdirection) to use an API that was designed to reduce the perfomrance of that software on the common platform. Yep, Microsoft explicitly used their natural monopoly to prevent people, even those with better designed products, from competing evenly in the market.
Companies that produce software they would like to have used by consumers have to overcome the basic laziness of the consumer. Most consumers are not going to bother to look for options when a tool capable of doing what they want is provided for them directly out of the box. This is the basis for the argument that Microsfot bundling is an abuse of the natural monopoly.
I have to agree, this doesn't support the accusations about bundling an email client in the business software suite . .
Spobody Necial
Microsoft got a pansy settlement with the DoJ because the DoJ "won" by too large of a margin.
t icleID=20269&DisplayTab=Article
It's almost like they shot the moon in the legal system; by loosing as badly as they did, they drove the judge to literally foam at the mouth, and even though the appeals court did not find any errors in Judge Jackson's decision making, they revoked his judgement because of his extreme behavior unbecoming of a federal judge.
He liked MS (and MS executives) to the Mob. He's accused them of lying and deceiving intentionally. Even after he was removed from the case, he didn't change his tune; they little drove him to the "blood boiling angry" point.
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/Index.cfm?Ar
Here's some good quotes: (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-253250.html )
Among the examples, in the Jan. 8 issue of The New Yorker, Jackson said Microsoft founder Bill Gates "has a Napoleonic concept of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power and unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experience, no reverses." He added that company executives "don't act like grown-ups!"
In the book, "World War 3.0: Microsoft and Its Enemies," author Ken Auletta writes that Jackson took aim at the appeals court that is now hearing the Microsoft case. The court "made up about 90 percent of the facts on their own," Jackson said of the appellate judges' decision in another case.
Also in that book, Auletta writes that Jackson likened Microsoft's "proclamation of innocence to those of four members of the Newton Street Crew convicting in a racketeering, drug-dealing and murder trial he had presided over five years before."
Notice that the appeals court said that although the appearance of bias was enough for them to return the case to a lower court, they "did not find evidence of bias."
Perhaps if Microsoft had not of been so brazen, if they had not gotten Judge Jackson quite so riled up, Microsoft would have been broken up. It's bizarre; but they didn't win the case on merit; they got the judgement overturned on the fact that their trial judge was so furious with them he couldn't hold his tongue.
They shot the moon, and it actually worked out. Bizarre; but you can bet your ass the next Microsoft antitrust judge will not operate like that.
It's too bad, really; Judge Jackson showed a surprising grasp of the issues. One can only hope the next judge has similar technical aptitude.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
... 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.
Microsoft could be shattered into separate companies. A Windows OS company. An Office productivity software company. A media player company (which would last about a fortnight)
And every one of those companies would be a monopoly in their field. Windows would still have 90%+ market share, IE Corp would still have a monopoly on browsers, Office would still command it's share, and WMP? well, it's either that, real, or Apple. Real might as well be declared dead and Apple is gaining market share through Itunes anyway through Ipod sales even though WMP is bundled. So I guess that means we need to split it up down to word inc, excel inc, windows server Inc, WMA Audio Inc, ETC, OOPS! the're still monopolies...
In fact, Apple and Mozilla are shining examples of software that competes very well in the MS monopoly. Why? because they don't suck, spam you, or are owned by someone who doesn't know what to do with it. Most of the companies that screamed monopoly Either got bought out and flushed by whoever bought them out (Wordperfect and Lotus), Made a shoddy product (Netscape), started using their client for ad revenue to the point of becoming practially spyware (Real), or did a combination of the three. Meanwhile, Microsoft slowly surpassed them while they were screwing around.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!