Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Faces Korean Deadline
nmccart wrote to mention an article on the Yahoo! news service stating that South Korea has leveled a deadline at Microsoft. The deadline is the newest addition to that country's anti-trust ruling against the OS maker."South Korea's antitrust regulator has given Microsoft Corp. the deadline of Aug. 24 to comply with a landmark ruling ordering the world's largest software maker to unbundle some of its products from its Windows computer operating system and pay fines. On Friday afternoon, the Fair Trade Commission said it has sent documents on the punitive sanctions to Microsoft, which was ruled last December to have violated the nation's fair trade laws by tieing its instant messenger, audio, and video software to Windows. The commission also confirmed its order that Microsoft pay 32.4 billion won (US$33.5 million) in the December ruling on the U.S. software giant's unfair business practices."
and to ship an OS without them
It has nothing to do with whether a browser is shipped with their O/S or not. It's to do with deep facilities integration, which results in the machine being largely inoperative if the native browser is replaced with another.
Microsoft could easily have avoided this if they wished, by making the integration done through a separate module which can be used by 3rd party browsers too. They chose not to do so.
Exactly, which is why Dell, HP, Lenovo, or whoever should be able to choose which browser, IM player, and media player they install on the complete systems they sell, and not be forced by the OS/kernel maker to include one and pay a penalty even if they don't want it.
Microsoft doesn't sell computers, it sells operating systems and application software. Computer makers should be able to choose which components, if any, they want to buy from Microsoft.
Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
I'm sorry but i think we are forgetting a few key things here.
Microsoft is the maker of the software, they made it the way they wanted, and they allowed other companies to build software for it.
Why then should they be forced to not bundle their own software on it? They own the software, not the korean government.
If they want to make it more convenient for people without internet to use their computers then there should be absolutely no problem with that, they have the right to.
It would hurt Microsoft a lot to pull out of the EU. Pulling out of South Korea, though? Somehow that doesn't strike me as one of their cash-cow sales regions.
I'll bite...you see, with the US & China tied as #1 for most internet users, South Korea comes in right behind them. #4 is so far below, there isn't much reason to even consider it.
I'm certain MS AND South Korea both have a more accurate view of the world market than you an all the others who joke about how much South Korea matters in this example.
Next, consider just who is actually building all those Dell and HP branded desktops, notebooks and displays (not where, but whom) - then factor in the effect of bundling and how the real expense is the liscense for each unit. Putting a crimp in that business model is like a cats tail under gramma's rocker...only a matter of time before everyone hears the yeowll and knows something is amiss.
Point is - South Korea is not to be taken lightly in this matter. South Korea knows it and MS knows it. I, for one, hope MS both gets smacked silly and learns a lesson. Somehow, tho, I doubt MS will ever learn.
And also in the news, Microsoft is to create another "special" version of Windows to address South Korean antitrust concerns. This "special" version will be given a lobotomy and ride the short bus to school much like the European "Windows N" AKA "Windows Reduced Media Edition".
Other third party applications include very advanced technology called an "uninstaller" and have done so for years. This technology is so advanced that Microsoft as of yet is completely unable to replicate it or integrate it in to their Windows OS.
Uninstaller technology would give users and OEMs a choice of which software applications are installed with Windows. When asked to comment head of Microsoft marketing MS. Bob stated "We firmly believe that users do not need this functionality, any kind of choice is too complicated. Everyone should just use the software we provide them and depend on us." The interview was interruped by the defening sound of a compeditor getting crushed.
While this fine means almost nothing to them, if every country threatens to do the same, they will start to take notice.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Is it just me or does anyone else feel all these "governments" view Microsoft as a cash cow and are trying to milk it for all it's worth.
Honestly, the definition needs to be redifined. What Linux, Apple and Microsoft is selling (or giving away for free) is not just an OS, but a complete package. Would anyone even bother buying an OS that doesn't come with a media player, a internet browser, or internet messenger in nowadays?
I understand that because of Microsoft's monopoly, it's gives then an unfair advantage of deploying any software they want, but browser, IM, media player are such core software in today's society, I dare you find a modern OS that doesn't have all of them in it. It's not like they're PREVENTING you from installing another software to replace it. By restricting one company from putting these software in, but allowing everyone else to do it, in my opinion, is what's unfair. If they forced every OS to not include a browser, media player, and IM client, I can be more content with that decision.
Just my rant and 2 cents.
HD Trailers
The problem is two-fold: they hide the cost of those add-on packages in the cost of the OS, while other software authors have to be added on on top of the OS. We saw similar problems with Netscape's webservers and IIS in the NT 4.0 workstation vs. server lawsuits.
The other problem is that resellers are prohibited by their licensing from Microsoft from un-installing such components and replacing them with other add-on utilities, or even making the other add-on components the default. Microsoft got caught repeatedly threatening to raise their OS price to vendors if they set Netscape to be the default web client, or even if vendors installed Netscape by default in their OEM bundles: we're seeing similar problems now with Real, Quicktime, and other audio and video components. So South Korea has good reason to complain about this.
What's amazing is that they're making exactly the sort of court decision that Judge White should have made against Microsoft here in the US, years ago. Microsoft absolutely does not want to have any precedents, anywhere, of unbundling their software: if South Korea, it means other countries can, too. Remember that Windows is the core product to sell lots of other Microsoft products: Microsoft uses that Windows bundling to prevent other tools from ever bing installed.
South Korea comes in right behind them. #4 is so far below, there isn't much reason to even consider it.
:-p). The whole media player discussion I think is also bull - I think you'll find that people use QT more than they use WMP, yet Apple is selling _their_ computers with it, and it's pretty integrated in their system (I don't mind it, so no pun intended).
;) )
Yes, but out of all the people in SK using MS, how many of them have _legal_ installations of their software?
While China and other Asian countries are very advanced in the use of computers and Internet technology (and if they're not advanced they have the numbers to make it count), how many are legal?
If the market in SK would have, say 1mil customers (totally random number), and out of those only 200k have legal copies, it doesn't weight so heavy on MS...
Just a thought..
I do agree tho that this whole going-after-MS crap is beginning to be ridiculous. IM client??? They're not even in the top 2 companies of IM! Don't want IE? Use something else? God knows people are, and it's not like you're paying for IE (that would probably be a crime
Now if they would bundle Office with Windows, that's where it'd be wrong...but all these small components...would you buy and OS that comes with a kernel only? (And yes, I use gentoo too
The rules are different when you're a convicted monopolist who has already got into trouble for using its desktop monopoly to move into other areas. If MS had only 20% of the market and played reasonably nicely with everyone else this wouldn't be a story now would it. When MS start behaving as if the law is something they have to obey like everyone else instead of treating it as an inconvenient business expense then perhaps they'll lose a lot of their enemies.