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)."
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]
(IANAL yadda yadda) The difference is that Microsoft is a convicted monopoly. The things they are, and aren't allowed to do, CHANGE because of their status as a monopoly. The day that Apple controls 90% (at least) market share, and then bundles the same software with their OS that they do now, is the day the'll be screamed at. When you're a monopoly you cannot bundle competitive products(ie a Browser or Media Player). More specifically you can't punish or threaten your distributors for adding or removing components from that bundle. Given that I don't think they have much of a case with Outlook, maybe with Active Directory, but even that is a bit of a stretch.
If there is anything more important than my ego around here, I want it caught and shot now.
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
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.