Microsoft To Fight Korean Verdict

DocHart wrote to mention a BBC article covering Microsoft's appeal against their recent Korean ruling. From the article: "The KFTC continued to investigate Microsoft's practices, despite the firm paying Daum $30m in November to end their dispute. The ruling of the KFTC echoes a similar 2004 judgement by the European Commission, which also found that Microsoft was abusing its market domination. Microsoft's rivals have since accused the firm of dragging its feet over unbundling its software in Europe, something Microsoft denies. "

Comments

would someone explain to me

[j1mmy]

what is so bad about bundling? every bsd and linux distro are chock full of bundled applications. why can't windows do the same?

Re:would someone explain to me

[dotpavan]

every bsd and linux distro are chock full of bundled applications. why can't windows do the same?

because they arent the underdogs?

Re:would someone explain to me

[Fanboy Troy]

Because the unbundling can't be done. Believe it or not, some people actually exclude some of their users, relying on the point that microsoft bundled products are on 90% of all systems world wide. same with wmp. This lets microsoft leverage its monopoly to gain market share in other fields like media. Simply anti-competetive.

Re:would someone explain to me

[Tackhead]

> > every bsd and linux distro are chock full of bundled applications. why can't windows do the same?
>
>because they arent the underdogs?

And because in Korea, only old underdogs can bundle an episode of chair-throwing with their opera*WOOF*fling*THUNK*
NO CARRIER

(Have no fear, the guy who'll fucking bury Google is here!)

Re:would someone explain to me

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all about the Benjam1ns, j1mmy.

Re:would someone explain to me

[MyLongNickName]

Because it is an American company. Face it, the world does not like America right now. Part of this is deserved, partly it isn't. For years, Europe has wanted to return to its glory days and be the center of the world. If they cannot accomplish this, they at least want there to be no clear number one. Korea wants to be part of a new Asia.

While neither region is able to take on the US militarily or culturally, then have been very successful about throwing up roardblocks to US business. I know folks in the import/export business... things aren't always very efficient about making it trough customs if it is a US firm.

Microsoft makes a very easy target. Some of their business practices are questionable. I'd argue that for their size, and market dominance, they play relatively (please note term relative) nicely. But when you are the 800 lb gorilla, and offensive behavior is huge.

Bottom line, this is 1 part anti-monopositic behavior, 2 parts anti-US ruling.

Re:would someone explain to me

[QuietLagoon]

Bundling in and of itself is not a bad thing. Having a monopoly in and of itself is legal. However, when you use your monopoly to gain leverage from bundled products in order to eliminate competition, that is a bad thing; and that is what Microsoft has been found guilty of doing.

Re:would someone explain to me

[rebeka thomas]

what's bad is microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and they have abused their power by bundling their apps that support only their protocols in order to give their protocols extra support they wouldn't have had on their own without microsoft's illegal monopoly practises.

Letting Microsoft keep on bundling apps that they don't allow to be removed is like giving a sniper rifle and some rope to a convicted serial killer who shot all his victims with a sniper rifle and then hung them from trees with rope. Normal people can be trusted with rifles and rope, but not our friendly neighbourhood serial killer.

Microsoft's bundling is all about promoting the one protocol or format that the bundled app supports. Linux's bundling is all about choice (you have twenty or more IM apps for one linux distro, for example. That, and they're still not convicted illegal monopolists). There's bundling, and then there's bundling.

Re:would someone explain to me

[gstoddart]

every bsd and linux distro are chock full of bundled applications. why can't windows do the same?

because they arent the underdogs?

And, most importantly, you can choose which pieces you want to install, and only have the ones you want. They're just on the distribution as a courtesy.

There is a difference between saying "here is your OS, and by the way, we've included scads of optional stuff you can install or not as you wish" and the Microsoft position of "here is your OS, we've also given your our media player, conveniently given you links to drive you to MSN and Passport, and given you no way to choose not to install them".

Those components come with the base OS and need to be separately uninstalled, if it can be uninstalled at all.

In the article, they say "Korean customers can easily download rival systems", well, why not put the competitors on equal footing and allow you do download the MS offerings if you want? They defend it as saying that people wouldn't know how, or it's too much hassle; but tout it as a perfectly good way to get the competitors products -- the difference is the competitors don't have the same luxury of shoving the apps down the user's throats when they install the OS.

Meaning they get to ensure that since everyone is going to have their OS, that the user should be presented with their (often crappy) apps first. Want to include 'em in your distribution and make them truly optional components go ahead. Want to make them installed and entrenched from the get go, not a good plan.

If users had to always find and install the apps they needed ( or at least choose them ), they would understand that the defaults provided are neither required, nor always 'best of breed'. When people get the MS stuff by default, they just assume they have to do it.

I totally agree you should be able to buy a Windows operating system without getting the implied Microsoft bundled applications, which keep causing secutiry issues for people who don't otherwise know better.

Re:would someone explain to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to think that normal people shouldn't be trusted with rifles either.

Re:would someone explain to me

[s31523]

Nothing is wrong with bundling per se. Here is what I see as BIG differences:
Windows
1.) Make all the bundled software themselves.
2.) Closed source (proprietary) bundled software.
3.) Real hard to unbundle the software.
Linux
1.) Chooses "the best" (or just darn good) pick of someone elses software
2.) Bundled software is open source
3.) Real easy to unbundle the software.

Re:would someone explain to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully what you think has no bearing on reality.

Re:would someone explain to me

[Anonymous Coward]

convicted monopolist

Care to point me to the case which they were found guilty of being a "monopolist"? There is NOTHING illegal in having a monopoly.

Re:would someone explain to me

[Sqwubbsy]

Fact is this has been going on for a lot longer than the US has been around. Why do you think the Dutch built ships and a shipping empire? To avoid German taxation on lumber. That's right, they built ships and settlements all over the world because the Germans, who produced precious little in terms of European culture or trade, just stood athwart the trade routes.

And while part of it is xenophobia, a good deal of it is taking care of one's own. Face it, if Microsoft is slowed who knows which Korean firms might benefit. And if nothing else, they can extort a little money from a big company. The US Government does it to companies like Philip Morris and Microsoft, why can't Korea?

FWIW, I think Korea has a lot to add culturally on the global scene, as do most countries, especially when compared to the US which is just a mashup of various cultures. Militarily? South Korea is a fine US ally.

But to chalk everything up to anti-US sentiment is just absurd.

Re:would someone explain to me

[Saven Marek]

Oh for fucks sake, another asperger's geek who gets so hung up on little irrelevant points he misses the whole picture.

Go get treatment, retard, then come back and read the post again.

Re:would someone explain to me

[FridayBob]

You might be able to say that BSD and Linux distros also come bundled with media and communications applications, but the point is that this is free software and many distros usually come pre-installed with many 'competing' applications (multiple browsers, multiple mail clients).

With Windows, Microsoft always bundles one browser and one mail client, and both are made by Microsoft. They never include browsers or mail clients made by their competitors; if they did, other companies wouldn't be dragging them into court so often.

The result is that in the vast majority of all cases, the users will not go looking for any alternatives. They just use the applications that come with Windows, even though these applications are many years old and full of flaws. Therefore, the competition suffers and innovation is stifled.

Re:would someone explain to me

[tpgp]

what is so bad about bundling?

Nothing.

every bsd and linux distro are chock full of bundled applications. why can't windows do the same?

You're comparing fluffy kitten apples with ninja oranges. Microsoft can redistribute everything the top distro provide. The reverse is not true.

Bundling is a tactic microsoft use to gain competetive advantage (and this in itself isn't too bad - look at Apple's use of it) - but Microsoft take it further then they should, using their dominance in one market to attempt to gain control in another market.... via bundling.

Re:would someone explain to me

[akaariai]

The answer is: Expanding monopoly to other markets is illegal. That is what is so bad about bundling. That is why windows can't do the same. Can you name one application that you suspect linux distros are trying to monopolize by bundling? I can name several from Microsoft. When Vista comes out, I can name a few more.

Re:would someone explain to me

[hey!]

In the general case, it is not true that bundling is always bad. It may be bad in specific cases though. I won't presume to judge here, but I'll draw what I think are the critical distinctions. The examples you cite (linux and bsd) are different, because bundling, say OpenOffice doesn't preclude your getting OpenOffice from someplace else. If Microsoft bundled OpenOffice with Windows, I don't think anyone would complain ;-)

Microsoft bundling, say, Media Player is different for two reasons: (1) Media Player is not available for other platforms. (2) Microsoft is bundling two of its OWN products together and (3) Microsoft has a desktop monopoly.

I won't work this out in excruciating detail, but the net effect of these distinctions, through a combination of direct and indirect mechanisms, is that consumer choices are limited. Certainly companies attempting to enter the market are deterred. In the linux/bsde cases, it might also be that companies who wish to enter the market are deterred; but it is not the case that consumer choice is reduced. It's an alternative business model.

Right or wrong: it's up to you.

Re:would someone explain to me

[Anonymous Coward]

"I know folks in the import/export business... things aren't always very efficient about making it trough customs if it is a US firm."

I know folks in the domestic business... things aren't always very efficient about making it trough customs if it is no a US firm.

Re:would someone explain to me

[GreyWolf3000]

Microsoft's bundling is all about promoting the one protocol or format that the bundled app supports.

Interesting that Office is not bundled with Windows.

Re:would someone explain to me

[mickwd]

"While neither region is able to take on the US militarily or culturally"

Militarily I can understand.

But culturally? Surely, you jest?

I'm not one of those who says the US has no culture, but saying that neither Europe nor Asia can take on the US culturally is quite a statement.

Re:would someone explain to me

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer to your question is answered so many times in this forum, it's ridiculous that you ask! Didn't you perform a search before you posted?! Hey CmdrTaco, why don't we put this information in a FAQ so we can throw the slashdot manual in their face? Damn n00bs... :)

Re:would someone explain to me

[amliebsch]

I totally agree you should be able to buy a Windows operating system without getting the implied Microsoft bundled applications, which keep causing secutiry issues for people who don't otherwise know better.

Isn't this why they have the Windows "N" versions?

Re:would someone explain to me

[Fanboy Troy]

Is windows "N" the dominant windows version? Providing the option at the same price does not alter the way MS is anticompetitive. People who will buy windows "N" are the same people that use alternative media players anyway (providing you can find windows N on the shelves, where I live it wasn't). So the damage to microsoft's plan to leverage its monopoly: Zero. The EU was 'outsmarted' on this one. I hope it has people with a clue on board this time. A better plan would be to somehow make MS sell windows N exclusively, or to order MS to make wmp uninstallable. On the current case against MS in the EU: 'Opening up' MS a bit will not only benefit Europe, but the whole world.

Re:would someone explain to me

[jahudabudy]

Well, I don't know exactly how the GP meant his comment, but assuming he meant it the way I took it, he is somewhat correct :) Not that Europe or Asia don't have equally valid (or more so) cultures, but they have not been nearly as succesful in exporting their cultures to the global market. In the sense of gaining cultural* adoption by others, America is clearly unrivaled. Who doesn't drink Coke, watch Hollywood films, and listen to rock'n'roll?

* for certain debatable definitions of "culture"

Re:would someone explain to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that Office is not bundled with Windows.

To me, it seems they don't need to bundle it - MS don't only have a monopoly in the OS space with Windows, but they have a monopoly with the Office suite with MS Office. Both are already self sustaining (see their MS Office pervasiveness on the Mac OS too).

MS only needs to bundle apps where the app or package can't necessarily become a leader on its own merits, and must be promoted through the use of their monopoly position.

Re:would someone explain to me

[liliafan]

Additionally when you look at the linux/*bsd distros they usually have multiple choices for software, ie you want a video player, you can choice xanim, mplayer, xine you want an IDE eclipse, kdevelop, emacs (which is really everything), glade.

You get choices on what you install and no particular product is promoted over another by the distro, excluding desktops which usually has a default but even there you have the choice on other desktops that you can install.

Microsoft does no such thing they say here you have a media player it is shiny and pretty, when you are installing they keep telling you how great the bundled features are so when you actually finish the install most users are brainwashed and never even consider alternative software.

So to summarise, Linux (as my example) says you want a media player, cool which one here is a list of bundled choices choose whichever one you like.

Windows says ohhh look at the pretty media player we have given you, you shall use it with its new widgets and you will like it, if you try and remove it we will break everything so you have to reinstall so we can try and brain wash you again.

Re:would someone explain to me

[MyLongNickName]

Thanks. That is exactly how I meant it. Take a look at France, and their not allowing government officials to use certain words (e-mail is one funny example). Certain countries think they can "protect" their culture by decree. France is one of the most extreme examples.

Re:would someone explain to me

[Brushfireb]

I see what you are saying, but this type of stuff is a silly line to draw. And people only do it with microsoft.

Microsoft was trying to improve their operating system by including functionality into the OPERATING system by default. What people call bundling I call integration. This is a distinction made only be software people, and it is really only made by disgruntled software people (IE Netscape, AOL) and states looking for money.

So, in essence, its crap, but because MS was considered a monopoly (also crap) they have a special rulebook to play from.

Oh well, Perhaps I think this way becuase I own a company.

B

Re:would someone explain to me

[ChrisA90278]

Once you become a monopoly different rules apply. Now you ask why should diffent rules apply? It is to prevent abuse of "monpoly power". So what is "monpoly power" and how can it be abused? Here is an extreame example: Let's say I'm "The Water Company", the only company that can supply water to your house. It would be easy for me to abuse this power. Let's say I jack the rates up by 10X but offer you a 90% discount if you buy tires at some tire company I'm trying to start up. So you'd be stuck. Either my my tires or you toilets don't flush and your lawn turns brown. Bottled water only goes so far.

Microsoft does the same exact thing except more subtly. They say if you are a good water customer we will give you free tires. Subtle yes but just as effective if the goal is to drive the other tire resellers out of bussines. Microsoft clearly has the goal of driving browser makers and media player makers out of bussines. To prevent the more subtle types of abuse many places have laws to prevent "product linking" by a monopoly to prevent them effectly forcing you to buy something you don't want.

Re:would someone explain to me

[Anonymous Coward]

and it is really only made by disgruntled software people

Nah, it's more than that. Microsft is looking at controlling formats. I have never used an apple in my life, but recall quicktime movies delivering superior video and audio in windows 3.11. (Also, IIRC, microsoft ripped off quicktime technology. That got them a lawsuit and they settled with Apple) DivX (or Xvid) were really good formats way before wmv caught up, arguably they are still alot better. But you'll se most DVD players supporting Windows media today. Why is that? Because it can surely be used in 90% of computers (practical monopoly) without hassling the end user in downloading a codec. This is how microsoft comes into new markets, leveraging its first monopoly. Another point that contradicts what you are saying: If microsoft wanted to provide the end user with a great experience, why do they not ship wmp with all the codecs, like, say, divX? I'm sure a small licensing fee wouldn't be that much an issue for the biggest software company in the world.

Re:would someone explain to me

[Richard Steiner]

A piece of software bundled with the defacto monopoly operating system can (and has) destroy the potential market for that type of software.

If you want to learn more about the legal basis for various countries' actions agaist Microsoft, do some Google searches related to anti-trust laws.

Re:would someone explain to me

[QuietLagoon]

What is illegal about having a monopoly? There is no law (in the US) against having a monopoly. The illegality begins with what you do with the monopoly, not having it.

Re:would someone explain to me

[gnud]

ehhm, that's what the GP wrote.

Re:would someone explain to me

[fbjon]

Yeah, South Korea's cool, they've got a big heart and a huge Seoul!

Re:would someone explain to me

[Anonymous Coward]

> -- the difference is the competitors don't have the same luxury of
> shoving the apps down the user's throats when they install the OS.

Well, then the competitors should bundle an OS with their product. Why not?

Re:would someone explain to me

[drsmithy]

But culturally? Surely, you jest?

I think you'll find Europe and Asia are becoming a hell of a lot more like the US, than the US is becoming like Europe and Asia (and neither of them like it one bit, from what I can tell - understandably so, too).

Re:would someone explain to me

[ImTheDarkcyde]

i must comment that a 60day trial of office is being bundled with most modern Compaqs

Re:would someone explain to me

[Fanboy Troy]

You do, however, remain free not to use them - which is the important part.

You are free to not use them, but you are not free to:
a) Uninstall them.
b) Not be counted as having them as a windows user.

This lets web developers or media companies assume that 90% of the world have the capability of rendering an IE only page, or playing a wmv file legally, so they can default to microsoft products and not be losing over 10% of their audiance. But this is anti-competetive. And this is how microsoft leverages its monopoly. DivX was a great format alot before wmv caught up and arguably it is still better than wmv, yet most DVD players support windows media, because it can surely be played on 90% of the computers on earth. This is a format war, if it was about customer experience, they would ship all the codecs with wmp (like divX) instead of making you search to download it. (And obviously they have the money to pay any license fee, or pass the cost on to me. If something, this is the good thing about an OS you pay for, that you can integrate the cost of licensing technologies in the cost of the system.) In conclusion, let microsoft bundle anything they want (I would expect a web browser with my OS for example), just give people the choice to _not_ have it on their system if they are not using them.

Re:would someone explain to me

[howlingmadhowie]

let's look at the differences
software in a gnu/linux/bsd distribution:

• comes from many different companies and individuals.
• is designed to work using commonly defined system calls.
• is available in its entirety in source code
• tends to change with each new distribution, of which there are hundreds which can be freely downloaded

software installed per default on the microsoft windows operating system however:

• is made by one criminal company
• can work using secret, optimised system calls so giving it an innate advantage over software from other companies/individuals
• is not available as source code, so you have no idea what the software actually does
• is part of only one distribution, for which microsoft can stop the support whenever it sees fit
• cannot be freely copied, modified, installed
• is covered by patents
• tends to save per default in file formats which are proprietary and therefore cannot be supported by another software
• tends to only support proprietary file formats

i think the differences are clear.
please feel free to continue the list yourself.
howie

Re:would someone explain to me

[angulion]

Check your facts, a monopoly can very well be legal.

Monopolies
Specificly:
Natural monopoly

Re:would someone explain to me

[angulion]

Windows:
4.) Tries to promote their protocol over (even better suited) alternatives.

Re:would someone explain to me

[drsmithy]

You are free to not use them, but you are not free to:
a) Uninstall them.
b) Not be counted as having them as a windows user.

Which is of roughly zero relevance to 99% of users. Having app A installed does not stop me using app B that happens to do mostly the same thing.

This lets web developers or media companies assume that 90% of the world have the capability of rendering an IE only page, or playing a wmv file legally, so they can default to microsoft products and not be losing over 10% of their audiance.

Yes, just like they can only write software for Windows and be assured it will work on most computers.

But this is anti-competetive.

No, it's a business decision. Criticise the people writing the web pages/software/media/whatever, if they're not writing it the way you'd prefer.

This is a format war, if it was about customer experience, they would ship all the codecs with wmp (like divX) instead of making you search to download it. (And obviously they have the money to pay any license fee, or pass the cost on to me.

No, they'd ship commonly used codecs (which they do). Divx - outside of DVD ripping - is *not* a commonly used codec.

In conclusion, let microsoft bundle anything they want (I would expect a web browser with my OS for example), just give people the choice to _not_ have it on their system if they are not using them.

At which point you destroy most of the reason for having it there in the first place - common code reuse.

Re:would someone explain to me

[Fanboy Troy]

Which is of roughly zero relevance to 99% of users. Having app A installed does not stop me using app B that happens to do mostly the same thing.

Ah, but it does matter to businesses that windows users have IE there by default. This way IE defaults to 90% of computers, so you _must_ code for IE (you know they have IE, but you're not sure they have firefox). This just throws the responsibility for compatibility to the web developers, rather than it being microsoft's responsibility to make IE standards compliant. So even if you don't want to realize that alot of businesses just default to IE and forget about standards alltogether, you still have to recognize the amount of work people are doing just to preserve IE compatibility. If IE was uninstallable and as non standards compliant as it is today, people could code by standards and the burden would be on MS to fix their archaic browser.

Yes, just like they can only write software for Windows and be assured it will work on most computers.

The difference being the web or the internet in general is not and should not be platform specific as the native code you are talking about. It doesn't make any business sense, let aside ideological reasons. The only business sense about it, is that Microsoft with these anti-competetive moves, makes it a better cost-effective decison to tie stuff with their products.

No, it's a business decision. Criticise the people writing the web pages/software/media/whatever, if they're not writing it the way you'd prefer.

And I'm judging it as just that, a business decision: In the case of IE, as I pointed out above, you _have_ to code for IE, or else you are surely missing a big audiance. I often send out emails criticizing web developers, but the sad fact is that by having IE in the system by default, microsoft is making their life hard because they _have_ to implement workarounds for IE's shortcomings. Why should they have to be the ones coding out of standards and doing microsoft's job for them? Because some company for some untold reason, will not let IE be uninstalled. Some just irresponsibly decide to code only for IE. Same with media. Let wmp be uninstallable, or ship all codecs by default. It would be a better customer experience if I could just play any file they send me as I do in linux, than to have to hunt down codecs...

No, they'd ship commonly used codecs (which they do). Divx - outside of DVD ripping - is *not* a commonly used codec.

I don't know what side of the internet you live on, but over here divX is used alot in all sorts of videos. I recieve divX files by email with funny videos as much as I recieve wmv files, if not more. DivX is a fairly popular video format that windows just does not have support for. Just as it doesn't play quicktime movies out of the box. Or is that also not a commonly used codec? It's a political decision and not one based on your satisfaction as a customer, deal with it. Quicktime IMHO is and always was a superior format than anything microsoft. Remember MS ripping off Apple and reaching a settlement over it?. Just as in IE, it doesn't make sense for a business to distribute a divX or a quicktime file, because then 90% of their users need to install the appropriate codec. So it's easier to just distribute a wmv file (or mpeg, but they are lower quality and have bigger file sizes). This is how Windows media, through sane business decisions, gets unfairly popular. Once you let wmp be there by default, the rest are just logical steps businesses will take.

At which point you destroy most of the reason for having it there in the first place - common code reuse.

I keep seeing you post this. I don't think it means what you think it means, unless you have more information than I do. There is no reason you can not uninstall IE without breaking any dependencies. If so, microsoft has really made a monstrosity of code. Keep in m

Re:would someone explain to me

[Luthair]

While neither region is able to take on the US militarily or culturally, then have been very successful about throwing up roardblocks to US business. I know folks in the import/export business... things aren't always very efficient about making it trough customs if it is a US firm.

Apparently you haven't heard of the multitude of protectionist measures the US undertakes.

Re:would someone explain to me

[drsmithy]

Ah, but it does matter to businesses that windows users have IE there by default. This way IE defaults to 90% of computers, so you _must_ code for IE (you know they have IE, but you're not sure they have firefox).

No, you should be able to code for the common denominator that both IE and Firefox support.

If IE was uninstallable and as non standards compliant as it is today, people could code by standards and the burden would be on MS to fix their archaic browser.

Are you saying there is not a single common level of compatibility that both IE and Firefox can hit ? Because I find that difficult to believe.

The difference being the web or the internet in general is not and should not be platform specific as the native code you are talking about.

Why ?

It doesn't make any business sense, let aside ideological reasons. The only business sense about it, is that Microsoft with these anti-competetive moves, makes it a better cost-effective decison to tie stuff with their products.

Or that IE provides functionality - or development abilities - that Firefox (and/or "standards") does not.

If IE is either a) easier to target or b) more featureful in useful ways, then targeting IE specifically *does* make sense.

Same with media. Let wmp be uninstallable, or ship all codecs by default. It would be a better customer experience if I could just play any file they send me as I do in linux, than to have to hunt down codecs...

I've tried the "media experience" in Linux several times. "Hunting down codecs" is usually the *least* painful part of it.

Microsoft - as with every other vendor - have to provide a baseline level of functionality and capabilities with their OS. Both their customers and developers demand it. Shipping "every codec" is an impractical solution to this problem, since "every codec" is a fast-moving target (and that's completely ignoring any legal implications and/or additional costs).

It's also important to point out here, that what you appear to mean by "make it uninstallable" refers *only* to the player, and not the codecs. If you *are* referring to the codecs, then what you want to do will negatively impact the OS for basically everyone who matters.

I don't know what side of the internet you live on, but over here divX is used alot in all sorts of videos.

Nowhere near as many as Quicktime or WMP, in my experience. How many film trailers get distributed in DivX ?

DivX is a fairly popular video format that windows just does not have support for. Just as it doesn't play quicktime movies out of the box. Or is that also not a commonly used codec? It's a political decision and not one based on your satisfaction as a customer, deal with it.

It is a political decision, but it is also a technical one. Developers need a baseline to target. Expecting Microsoft (or any other commercial OS vendor) to provide - and by extension, support - code that isn't theirs and that they have no control over with their OS, is unreasonable.

Quicktime IMHO is and always was a superior format than anything microsoft.

Maybe so, but the atrociousness of the Quicktime player more than makes up for any superiorities it might have.

Remember MS ripping off Apple and reaching a settlement over it?.

I vaguely recall that had something to do with Microoft buying some "video accelleration code" from the same company Apple had acquired it from.

Just as in IE, it doesn't make sense for a business to distribute a divX or a quicktime file, because then 90% of their users need to install the appropriate codec. So it's easier to just distribute a wmv file (or mpeg, but they are lower quality and have bigger file sizes). This is how Windows media, through sane business decisions, gets unfairly popular. Once you let wmp be there by default, the rest are just logical steps businesses will take.

You seem to be arguing that busi

Re:would someone explain to me

[Fanboy Troy]

No, you should be able to code for the common denominator that both IE and Firefox support.

Sure you can. The common denominator is a subset of features on both browsers. If you have tried to develop for IE you'll see it is quite frustrating, while Firefox And Opera are on par with each other more or less. Check out the .StupidIEWidthHack on this css file from microsoft. This is a good example of basic things IE doesn't do. Anyhow, the point is not coding for the common denominator, but coding by standards and having the browsers be responsible for rendering the content right. I'm not saying you should not test your pages, but the burden today is on the developer to keep IE compatible with the content they want to display. IE is still relevant because it is tied with windows today.

Are you saying there is not a single common level of compatibility that both IE and Firefox can hit ? Because I find that difficult to believe.

Again you are missing my point. What I'm saying is that Firefox, Opera, Safari, Konqueror are striving to stick with standards. You'll see that the common denominator for these browsers are quite a big number of features. When you throw IE in there, the number of common features/common way of writing things drops dramatically. The point was that the only reason you are bothering with IE to begin with is because 90% of people _surely_ have it.

Why?

Well, first of all the ideological reasons. What if microsoft drops support for windows or IE tomorrow, yada, yada, yada... But, aside from this, the argument is basically as above. IE is a major player because it is surely on 90% of systems, not because it is a good browser. It is quite restricting. When designing a website your goal is for any customer to be able to see it, even if he is on the net using a *nix system or a mobile browser. So in your analogy, web standards are the 'executable standard' of the net, and you are asking me why it is not ok to exclude the use of the heap. You can but you shouldn't _have_ to. :)

Or that IE provides functionality - or development abilities - that Firefox (and/or "standards") does not. If IE is either a) easier to target or b) more featureful in useful ways, then targeting IE specifically *does* make sense.

Name some features IE offers that cannot be done with, say, Java.

I've tried the "media experience" in Linux several times. "Hunting down codecs" is usually the *least* painful part of it.

Funny, everything just worked(TM) here. :)

Microsoft - as with every other vendor - have to provide a baseline level of functionality and capabilities with their OS. Both their customers and developers demand it. Shipping "every codec" is an impractical solution to this problem, since "every codec" is a fast-moving target (and that's completely ignoring any legal implications and/or additional costs).

I demand a DivX codec and a quicktime codec. Alot of people I know, know what nemo's codec pack is. Why should that be? I pay them more than enough for this cost to be integrated in my license.

It's also important to point out here, that what you appear to mean by "make it uninstallable" refers *only* to the player, and not the codecs. If you *are* referring to the codecs, then what you want to do will negatively impact the OS for basically everyone who matters.

Yes, I'm talking about the player only, just as I'm talking about the browser only. With out a browser or a player, an engine or a codec is useless. An alternate engine or codec(s) can be shipped with alternate browsers or players. I'm not against wmv or the IE engine themselves. Sure the IE engine is archaic, but wmv today is actually a good format. It's the unfair and illegal pushing microsoft does for these products I am against. If the market ultimately chooses wmv, I won't be

Re:would someone explain to me

[MyLongNickName]

Yup. This is why we run a $700 billion dollar trade deficit.... no one can get their goods sold in the U.S. Heck, go to Wal-Mark... you'll only find "Made in the USA". Same with Home Depot.... Sears.... a million other places.

If we are protectionist, and run other countries run a $700 billion dollar surplus with us, I'd hate to see what would happen if we opened our shores up.

Re:would someone explain to me

[Luthair]

Perhaps you haven't heard of how the US protects its Sugar and Beef, or how it uses zeroing to illegally tarrif imports.

Re:would someone explain to me

[MyLongNickName]

If the U.S. is as bad or worse than its trading partners, please explain the $700 billion dollar trade deficit. Keep in mind that that is close to $2,500 per man, woman and child (illegal or not) in the U.S.

Also keep in mind that it is not all China. I am not aware of any European country that imports more from us than they export to us.

Lets hope they fight....

[Anonymous Coward]

Koean style

Hasn't Microsoft seen the commercials?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing beats KFC.

Oh wait, KFTC? Carry on, then.

Re:Hasn't Microsoft seen the commercials?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it shows my age. My first thought was "KFTC... finger lickin' good!"

Extortion?

[jasenj1]

At what point does extracting money from Microsoft become state sponsored extortion? Is MS really that evil that they are breaking laws all over the world illegally using their defacto monopoly?

There just seems to be a trend of "let's figure out something to prosecute MS for". I suspect all these countries that go after MS still have MASSIVE installed bases of MS software. Are all these fines just a round about way of getting lower license costs?

Just a thought.

- Jasen.

Re:Extortion?

[Fanboy Troy]

Well, you can judge the motives these governments have all you want. Short term, you could be right about the motives. But the motives are irrelevant, this is the law. Anti-competetive laws are there for a reason other than extortion of US corporations. These governments have the right and the obligation to provide developers with the same chance of success that MS has. As MS works today, this is not the case. Even the US DOJ went against MS. It's just that the DOJ can afford to be light on MS because it provides a great amount of jobs and revenue to the US. Other countries are not obligated to 'be nice'...

Re:Extortion?

[Roy Ward]

Is MS really that evil that they are breaking laws all over the world illegally using their defacto monopoly?

Yes. In many places (including the USA), a monopoly has extra rules it must follow to avoid abusing it's position.

Re:Extortion?

[Chris Burke]

There just seems to be a trend of "let's figure out something to prosecute MS for".

"Hey, why not prosecute them for their illegal abuses of monopoly power?"

"Brilliant! Have a Guinness."

What's the conspiracy again? I could believe selective enforcement (provided other companies who appear to be getting away with similar acts), but Microsoft has been found to be abusing their monopoly in the U.S., Europe, and now Korea.

But in answer to your first question, it becomes state-sponsored extortion at the point where MS is no longer actually guilty of the things they are accused. Their reluctance to comply with even the wishy-washy U.S. judgement indicates that reform is a long way in coming.

Re:Extortion?

[gstoddart]

At what point does extracting money from Microsoft become state sponsored extortion? Is MS really that evil that they are breaking laws all over the world illegally using their defacto monopoly?

At what point does extracting huge gobs of money from every nation in the world on terms they have no control over NOT become corporate extortion and economic subservience?

Yes, of course they have a defacto monopoly. When 90-95% of all computers run a Windows OS, how the heck is that not a de-facto monopoly? When Microsoft gets to decide they've innovated a new knock off of someone else's software and all people should get it, that's an abuse of a monopoly -- because consumers have no choice and they get to usurp someone else's market all in one go.

Microsoft is saying "we wish to sell our software globally, and purely on our terms, deal with it". The countries are saying "sorry, but you must adhere to the following restrictions if you wish to do business here". Most notably, to sell the OS without every MS app under the sun bundled to allow others to have equal access to the market

Say, country XZY has a small, but thriving software industry. They've got their own XYZ specific IM company, their own XYZ specific search engine, and a whole raft of webmail companies. Microsoft suddenly adds those features to their OS, makes them so they can't be unbundled, and when you install the next version of the OS, it installs itsself as the default and makes it difficult for you to get your XYZ specific stuff back. Effectively, putting the local company out of business, or seriously cutting into their revenue, thus sending even more of your dollars to Microsoft with no recourse -- all by making it the default with the OS.

The ability to push your own interests and products to the exclusion of all of your competitors, and in a way they do not have access to because you control the infrastructure -- that's a monopoly. Microsoft keeps talking about their freedom to innovate, which is a double edged sword that also means their freedom to ram stuff down people's throats and exclude their competitors at a whim. Their competitors do not have access to that distribution channel.

So, yes, what Microsoft is doing is BAD.

These countries are trying to ensure that at least some small percentage of the nation's software expenditures have a chance of going back to local companies. As opposed to Microsoft guaranteeing themselves the right to scrape as much money as they want out of a country.

Microsoft just thinks they should be able to sell on their terms, and all other considerations are secondary.

Re:Extortion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but in the USA, the rules are overridable if you have the right friends. In other countries, we would call that corruption. In the USA, we call it republican business at work.

Re:Extortion?

[Khammurabi]

At what point does extracting money from Microsoft become state sponsored extortion? Is MS really that evil that they are breaking laws all over the world illegally using their defacto monopoly?

A man more insightful than I am once wrote: That one should avoid being despised and hated. Microsoft has done very little to avoid public hatred and, as such, public opinion greets measures such as these with an overwhelming response of "meh. They had it coming." So when countries take unusually hard steps like these, there is very little public outcry against it.

The point is, people don't care if "Bad Things" happen to "Bad People". This is why we see the public rush to defend Firefox, Apple and Google, but call for beheadings when Microsoft is mentioned. If Microsoft doesn't like these things happening to them, it needs to get back in the good graces of the people.

(Now if only I could convince the current administration that it is not good to be the most hated nation in the world.)

Re:Extortion?

[jasenj1]

But isn't there some limit to the "bundling hurts others" argument? In this case: "Microsoft is appealing against a South Korean ruling that it must unbundle its media player and messaging service from its Windows software system."

What's next? Fining them for including Paint, Mine Sweeper, NotePad, and the Calculator?

- Jasen.

Re:Extortion?

[Tom]

I suspect all these countries that go after MS still have MASSIVE installed bases of MS software. Are all these fines just a round about way of getting lower license costs?

Only in the same way that going after drug dealers is a way to get cheaper sports cars onto the market. In other words: Yes, if you insist on some really convoluted thinking, you can construct that being the case. For everyone who likes Ockham's Razor better, the case is simple close-and-shut: Criminal company breaks law and gets sued.

Re:Extortion?

[Roy Ward]

Well, I was tempted to say something like that in my post, but I don't live in the USA, so you might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

Re:Extortion?

[snoopyowns]

Say, country XZY has a small, but thriving software industry. They've got their own XYZ specific IM company, their own XYZ specific search engine, and a whole raft of webmail companies. Microsoft suddenly adds those features to their OS, makes them so they can't be unbundled, and when you install the next version of the OS, it installs itsself as the default and makes it difficult for you to get your XYZ specific stuff back. Effectively, putting the local company out of business, or seriously cutting into their revenue, thus sending even more of your dollars to Microsoft with no recourse -- all by making it the default with the OS.

Easy answer to that one, DON'T INSTALL THE NEXT VERSION. And I'm not sure how computer literate you are considering installing third party programs on Windows is extremely easy, changing settings is extremely easy. Granted there are a lot more programs I wish that Windows came with that I could remove, but if they are there it doesn't hurt me. I just install a different program from that same type of software and use that.

I think I should file a lawsuit against any company that makes a product that I purchase and it doesn't do what I want it to. /sarcasm Btw, that means don't buy it if you don't like it.

Re:Extortion?

[angulion]

None of your suggestions have a net effect - the ability to change another market. IM and WMP both have.

I guess one can ask if the bundled software pushes a fileformat or a protocoll (controlled by MS), if it is, it probably is a big no-no.

So, next thing could possibly be some kind of RSS-like-format that is "innovated" at MS (isn't something like that coming to Vista?).

Totally Unfair

[FST]

I am by no means a M$ fan, but this ruling seems to have no basis EXCEPT to steal $30 million from M$. That's just like saying that McDonalds should be sued because they bundle salt with their fries.

Re:Totally Unfair

[TheBogie]

MacDonalds's was sued by a bunch of vegetarians for "bundling" beef fat in their fries and not telling anyone.

Re:Totally Unfair

[Opportunist]

You could order your fries without salt. And I'm pretty sure McD would make it possible.

If you're a country, you could even rule that McD has to offer its fries without salt, and they'll comply.

The basis is abusing a monopoly position to kill competition. Back when I was young, monopolies were considered BAD in the US.

Re:Totally Unfair

[endrue]

Please stop saying "M$" - it looks stupid.

- Andrew

Re:Totally Unfair

[erroneus]

Actually, it's funny you compare it to salted fries from McD's. Fact is, each and every time I've ever asked McD's for unsalted fries, I got it that way. Believe it or not, as a company they actually care about whatever concerns the customer. Of course, I'm rarely concerned about it being salted... I'm actually more concerned about it being HOT. Actually asking for "no salt" is just the mechanism I use instead of asking for "please give me hot fresh fries" which would result in at least a bit more resistance and possibly some sort of indignation. After they give you the salt-free fries, just add salt if you like! :)

In any case, Microsoft's 'bundling' most certainly has a demonstrably adverse affect on the consumer. I can't get behind ALL of the arguments, but from my perspective, any time I cannot remove a component or app, it's a problem for the consumer's choice. I can go deeper into the same argument where components of MSIE being linked in with other 3rd party software such as email clients, for example, automatically imports the same vulnerability that the browser has regardless of whether or not the user chooses to use Firefox or Opera or something else to browse the web. (But then that gets into other aspects like blame... did the email client authors HAVE to link to MSIE components to get HTML rendering? No but there are reasons they selected that path and typically one important reason is that Microsoft actively encourages them to do so which locks users into Windows and other Microsoft products even MORE deeply.)

Microsoft needs to be forced into changing their behavior and the damage they have caused needs to be reversed as much as possible. Now should this involve fining them? Not necessarily, but "fines for non-compliance" is standard. I get fines when I drive too fast in front of a cop. I'd get fined for contempt of court if I behaved in such a way that could be ruled as such. Fines are a standard mechanism that doesn't necessarily fit the purpose of changing behavior but it's pretty much all they've got. Microsoft was SUPPOSED to have been split up and that would have been then end of all the troubles... especially with other (foreign) governments charging the company with the same offenses. But somehow they managed to escape that fate... a pity.

Re:Totally Unfair

[frank_adrian314159]

You could order your fries without salt. And I'm pretty sure McD would make it possible.

Actually, no. They'd need to have a clean fry tray. They salt the fries in the same heat tray that they store them in before they're packaged. Even if they emptied the fry tray (for your special order), there would still be residual salt from prior orders. And if you think that Mickey D's is going to take on the liability of having some flunky manually trying to transfer your hot, unsalted fries from a dripping fry basket, you're probably wrong.

Re:Totally Unfair

[bill_kress]

Back when I was young, monopolies were considered BAD in the US.

Me too. I'm afraid Reagan ushered in a new age of stupidity in otherwise smart people.

So many of these new "free marketeers" are simply 100% ignorant of the ramifications of their beliefs. They have thought it out, and being otherwise intelligent people have decided that greed makes sense and if everyone would just be completely greedy, we'd have this perfect world...

It takes a faith stronger than any Christians' to continue to believe in a completely free market in the face of massive evidence that it needs significant controls, so trying to reason with them isn't useful. Also, remember that many of these people are quite smart and used to being right--it's much more difficult for such an individual to recognize when he's got good logic but is working from bad assumptions.

I think we have to wait for the next reset, probably a massively serious depression, before we swing back to a more worker-based system. Maybe next time we'll pass a few more permanent laws so that the next wave of "neo rich" can't dismantle them so easily.

Americans (Humans?) have such short memories and are doomed to repeat their mistakes no matter how clearly those who actually understand try to explain.

Re:Totally Unfair

[Richard Steiner]

It makes more sense to some of us than GNU/Linux.

Re:Totally Unfair

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not all that smart. It's widely accepted in economics that market can and do cause conditions where political authority (or any other outside the market system) must step in to correct the problem ("market failures"). Many so-called free-marketeers seem to conveniently forget that bit of economics orthodoxy. In fact, "free market" outside the encompassing political system is meaningless, and it's the political system that define what its version of "free market" is, and different countries/people are comfortable with different style of political system (if at all).

Increase "democracy". Yeah.

Re:Totally Unfair

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what you are saying is that in your opinion your fellow humans are so completely bereft of intelligence that they can not even be trusted with spending their own money?

They need smart people like you to form governments to save them. You have such a positive view of humanity.

In Korea...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Korea, bundled software is only used by old people!

I can explain

[Spy der Mann]

what is so bad about bundling?

Maybe this can refresh your memory.

If Microsoft didn't bundle internet explorer, both IE and Netscape would keep fighting to deliver better, more secure products. It's been 10 years since Windows 95 came out, and viruses have multiplied via internet explorer security flaws.

$30 million?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Daum, that's a lot of cash! ...Sorry. :(

first 3 posts

[Tachikoma]

seem too MS friendly to be genuine /. posts
perhaps you are here by mistake?

Re:first 3 posts

[slavemowgli]

It's called astroturfing...

Dragging their feet?

[RandoX]

Judging by the revolving release date of Vista, I wouldn't say they're capable of doing the unbundling any faster. Let's face it. That's how long it's taking them to do something that they really really want to get finished...

Re:Dragging their feet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some have speculated that the opposite is true, and that Vista is late because they are dragging their feet on these anti-trust related issues. After all, a late vista results in bad PR but maintains and extends their monopoly. Whereas nice shiny componentized code delivered on time results in easier compatability for competitors and may break the monopoly. Vista isn't done until Samba won't run!

It's just another write off

[big dumb dog]

It's just another write off. The real looser is the American tax payer, who ultimately picks up the tab.

Re:It's just another write off

[k12linux]

Could you explain exactly how any of this affects the American tax payer?

Re:It's just another write off

[amliebsch]

You don't even know what a write-off is, do you?
</Jerry>

Good luck fighting the Koreans

[Anonymous Coward]

I predict Microsoft will ruse this rawsuit. Solly Charlie.

Re:Good luck fighting the Koreans

[Anonymous Coward]

hey, pukku.

2 reasons

[Opportunist]

First, a market controlling position. Second, the unability to unbundle.

No BSD or Linux distro has a similar market domination as Windows. Even RedHat, being one of the key players in the Linux market, has no position to dictate which software is to be "in" the fold and which one is "out". RedHat (and other distributors) also neither offer key software themselves, nor do they set a standard (besides .rpms, for which the specs are open and every distributor can implement a routine to make use of them).

Also, Linux distris usually come bundled with a variety of options for every kind of application (where available). There are multiple browsers, multiple compilers, multiple word processors, every distribution (at least every distri I know) even offers most if not all competing XWindow systems (Gnome and KDE being the best known amongst them).

MS usually only bundles their own software with its product. I bet they could get a lot of relief by bundling competing media players and browsers.

But even that would not suffice, for the second reason: Their inability to unbundle.

The disputed modules are so tightly weaved into the system that it is not possible to remove them anymore. You simply cannot uninstall the MS Internet Explorer. It is part of the operating system (as odd as it may seem to someone familiar with the theories behind good system design). So part of their dominant position stems from the question "Why should I install another browser if I can't get rid of the other one anyway?"

That's the whole deal behind the complaints of South Korea and the EU. I'm in the EU, and honestly, I couldn't care less if MS is a company from the US.

I use RedHat, despite other (European) distris being available.

Re:2 reasons

[drsmithy]

It is part of the operating system (as odd as it may seem to someone familiar with the theories behind good system design).

It's not odd in the slightest. Code reuse and modularity are considered hallmarks of good system design.

There's a reason why KDE, GNOME and OS X have gone on to reimplement the same sort of functionality - *because it was a good idea*.

For all the problems shared software components can cause, they are generally considered to offer an overall benefit. Which is why every contemporary OS has so many of them.

So part of their dominant position stems from the question "Why should I install another browser if I can't get rid of the other one anyway?"

No, because "getting rid of the other one" is completely irrelevant. The real question is "why should I install another browser when this one works fine". The answer - as people are discovering - is that in many cases IE *doesn't* "work fine", which is why Firefox is becoming more popular.

Stop projecting your idealistic nerdiness onto everyone else. Normal people have no interest in the philosophies of OSS and the religion of hating Microsoft, they just want to get a job done. Give them better tools to do what they want to do, make them aware of those tools, and they will use them.

Or, to put it succintly, build it and they will come.

Re:2 reasons

[snoopyowns]

They shouldn't have to unbundle. They can make their product as they want to, when you choose to purchase and use Windows, you are choosing to use the functionality built into Windows.

Now if they were bundling with only certain Third Party programs, such as bundling Java into it, since they do not own Java, that would be forcing Java onto the Consumer.

If you don't want to use Windows Media Player, then don't, it's that simple, I used Winamp for quite some time. People just like to piss and moan and now they are trying to get some money for nothing.

"Why should I install another browser if I can't get rid of the other one anyway?"

Again, that is the user's choice. Basically what everybody is saying is that Windows should remove all the functionality out of it. So it runs your hardware, but you cannot open any documents, you cannot browse the internet, can't play any music or videos, but all it can do is just sit there and look pretty unless the user takes additional steps to add programs? That's the stupidest thing in the world. Leave everything the way it is. If you don't like it, get Linux. Linux is a great option, very nice distro's are out now that are idiot friendly. The fact is that when the user buys the PC, they are willingly purchasing Windows and what it comes with.

Re:2 reasons

[Fanboy Troy]

The problem isn't that. It is the sheer number of windows installations and the impact it has on the market. The percentage of windows computers on the net is so big, alot of governments including the US has ruled MS to be a monopoly. So, using these numbers to 'enforce' (practically it comes cheaper business-wise to tie your media with MS products) the non-standard way IE displays web pages or to automatically make wmv popular (almost the default video format) is anti-competetive. They are using one monopoly to gain market share in other fields. There would be no fuss if either IE or wmp were uninstallable, there would be no base in caliming IE or wmp is on 90% of systems, thus these products would need to compete on merits. Also there would be no fuss if windows were to ship with all the codecs (like divX or quicktime or even the painfull real) or if IE was fully standards compliant. Again in this case, these products would need to compete on merits. The position I am supporting is so blindingly clear that it stood up in court and won, yet there are people standing up for MS. Sigh... The funny thing about it, is that MS needs to do little stuff, small changes to avoid these acquisitions, yet it chooses not to... I don't see how given the option to uninstall IE or WMP if you liked would harm your windows experience, providing logic dictates you will be replacing them with another product. Even further I'm quite baffled you don't know what you are missing when MS ships wmv with minimal codecs in favor of pushing their agenda. Windows users _pay_ for their OS, still linux users don't need to search for codecs. They are simply there...

Microsoft has been

[Eric Damron]

...getting away with their anti-competitive practices for a very long time. The World is just now saying "enough!"

But Microsoft being the bully it is won't stop without first taking a beating.

It's called a penalty

[Opportunist]

It's not so much that the EU said "MS abuses its monopoly, so they pay XXX $". The EU court decided that MS abuses its monopoly to curb competition and development, and ruled that MS has to stop abusing its position. In case they do not comply with the court's ruling, they have to pay a penalty.

Im my books, companies are corporate bodies, and as such, they have to respect the law. Just like I have to. If I break the law, and am considered guilty, I have to pay a fine.

Why should it be different for corporations?

Re:It's called a penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a fine, not a penalty.

Local councils in the UK are trying to tip-toe around the use of the word fine and trying to convince people that parking fines are 'fixed penalty notices' thereby avoiding that trifling bother of having to get a conviction in a court of law before demanding money from people as punishment for their supposed wrongdoings.

Don't jumble your words up. A 'penalty' is just a flowery word for a fine.

Don't let fines become pretty, flowery, everyday things.

How can you tell if they're intentionally dragging

[Anonymous Coward]

With the news about Vista, maybe they're just getting slow...

I heard that it's hard work and that they're workin' weekends and orderin' in.

Sorry, but I don't get it...

[Eric Damron]

How exactly are the fines that Microsoft pays being passed onto the taxpayer?

Re:Sorry, but I don't get it...

[big dumb dog]

These expenses ultimately go against the tax base that Microsoft would be paying. True Microsoft does suffer some, but the tax payer picks up a large chunk in lost revenue from corporate income tax. The legal fees (e.g. money spent for lawyers) can also be written off in one way or another.

Additionally, payment in kind can sometimes be accepted for these types of law suits. This means that a few hundred dollars worth of plastic can actually be expensed for several million dollars because it contains software on it.

Here is a good site for tax information: http://www.taxadmin.org/

Korean Extortion: Mafia-like Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

The Korean economy is dominated by huge businesses known as Chaebols. To this day, the top 30 chaebols generate 16% of South Korea's GDP.

What Microsoft is doing pales in comparison to what the Korean people and their own businesses are doing in South Korea. Chaebols routinely engage in cartel-like behavior to fix prices for goods and services in South Korea. Worse, these chaebols are responsible for wiping out the ship-building industry in the United States.

In the midst of this nonsense, the Korean government says that Microsoft is a "problem"?

Here's a translation from Korean speak into English. "We Koreans do not like the fact that a non-Korean company is dominating a certain industry (in this case, the software industry) in South Korea. That domination belongs to the Korean brotherhood. We intend to reduce Microsoft to a mere shadow of its former self and to serve the remains to the chaebols".

Bla bla bla

[irimi_00]

From a memetic/cultural perspective. South Korean culture is flourishing (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor yId=5300970), and many people view Microsoft as floundering and reactionary (they change the name of outlook to match Apple Mail, redo large portins of Vista, and are often percieved as not having the consumers best interest in mind, opposed to Google who says 'lets not be evil' [whatever that means]). The hearts and minds of the people and therefore jurors and judges and beurocrats (unless, of course, it is a conspiracy) are not on Microsofts sides. Perception is everything. Microsoft will lose this.

Put simply

[DarthChris]

I've seen this argument many times, and it forgets something important:

MS do not give you a choice whether you want the bundled apps to be installed or not, and in some cases (IE4+, WMP) it's ridiculously hard to remove them due to their tight integration with the OS.

This same tight integration is part of problem security-wise - a small whole in, say, IE can allow someone to gain control of the entire system. Furthermore there are a whole bunch of completely undocumented APIs that MS's apps use and no-one else's can.

Judging by your spelling

[Anonymous Coward]

the American taxpayer has already lost money on your education when you cant even differentiate between "loser" and "looser"

Re:Judging by your spelling

[big dumb dog]

Thanks :)

Totally Unfair....NOT!

[Eric Damron]

My God, when will people get it? Okay one more time...
Microsoft has a monopoly in the PC operating area. If you have a product that you want to sell but Microsoft bundles a similar product into its monopoly product it will kill your product. People will use the bundled product just because it's there.

Microsoft typically uses their monopoly position to expand into other, non-related areas. If for example they want to control web browsers they simply bundle (and in this case integrate) their browser into their operating system. Netscape had a big lead in browser development until Microsoft used its monopoly positioned operating system to kill the competition. This violates antitrust laws.

Now they want to control streamed content so guess what? Yep, they're bundling their video viewer. The list goes on and on...

Re:Totally Unfair....NOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is why Apple's iTunes has such a large presence on Windows Machines.

Re:Totally Unfair....NOT!

[robertjw]

Apple's iTunes has such a large presence on Windows Machines.

Umm... that was the whole point. The gp said:

If you have a product that you want to sell but Microsoft bundles a similar product into its monopoly product it will kill your product.

Microsoft doesn't have a product competitive to iTunes yet, when they do they can use their monopolistic advantage to promote it.

Re:Totally Unfair....NOT!

[KarmaMB84]

It is commonly agreed that Netscape 4.x and the first releases of Netscaped 6 sucked big juicy donkey nuts. I can't imagine them keeping any sort of lead over IE even if MS only offered it as a free download. In fact, they were getting owned by IE4 before Win98 was ever released.

Re:Totally Unfair....NOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think the real explanation is that iTunes represents a different "operating system" monopoly, in this case the monopoly on the "OS" for the iPod. If Microsoft's media player could interact with the iPod (I think it still can't; at any rate, it couldn't during the iTunes critical mass phase), then iTunes wouldn't have nearly the market share it has.

Oops

[hey!]

Microsoft bundling, say, Media Player is different for two reasons: (1) Media Player is not available for other platforms. (2) Microsoft is bundling two of its OWN products together and (3) Microsoft has a desktop monopoly.

I forgot (4) A fanatical devotion to the Pope.

Billion with a b

[Anonymous Coward]

South Korea wants $33 Billion with a B.

A non-trivial slice of a ~750B GDP

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/field s/2195.html

That would be like the US asking for ~$500 Billion using relative GDP as a rough comparison.

It's hard to believe that Microsoft has made that much money in South Korea especially with the piracy rate.

Justice

[Silent sound]

Is MS really that evil that they are breaking laws all over the world illegally using their defacto monopoly?

They were convicted of breaking the law in America.

The court trial in which they were convicted of breaking the law in America never reached the remedy/punishment phase. A new political administration simply quietly terminated the antitrust case with some handwaving before it could complete, with no real-world steps taken to stop Microsoft's existing antitrust violations or prevent them in future.

So Microsoft broke the law in America, was convicted in a court of law, and no one ever did anything to make them stop breaking the law. So is it that surprising that they're breaking the law in the rest of the world as well?

I don't see why Microsoft apologists keep falling back on this talking point of claiming that these fines and such are all about the money. If Microsoft would obey the law, they wouldn't have to pay these fines and settlements and whatnot. The power to end these fines is in Microsoft's hands. Microsoft prefers to pay fines and settlements rather than obey the law. What terrible extortionists these horrible statist states are, making Microsoft pay money until they stop doing illegal things. Who do they think they are? They're almost acting like they think they're autonomous countries with the power to pass and enforce laws within their own borders.

Re:Justice

[hackstraw]

So, soon we will learn which is more powerful. US government, S. Korean government, or the almighty buck.

The US conviction and lack of punishment or change by Microsoft showed that the buck is more powerful in the US.

We will see what S. Korea does...

Re:Justice

[Dolda2000]

If Microsoft would obey the law, they wouldn't have to pay these fines and settlements and whatnot.

I don't know the exact phrasing, but there is a quote which goes along the lines of "When the law is unjust, the just ones are in prison". Somehow, it seems applicable here. I don't want to seem like a Microsoft apologist (I, too, hate Windows and has been using Linux exclusively the last five years), but I really don't like the fact that Microsoft aren't allowed to decide for themselves what their products are supposed to contain. No matter how much I would like to see Microsoft eradicated from the face of the Earth, I still think this is the wrong way to go about it.

A monopoly is a company which is sponsored by the state in such a manner that others are prohibited by law to compete with them. Hence, Microsoft is not a monopoly. There are competitors, and they are alive and well. Even though Microsoft does engage in many activities which I would deem immoral, I don't think mere immorality should be outlawed. There are both Macintoshes and PCs that are sold with Linux pre-installed -- still, people buy computers with Windows pre-installed, because that is what they want, for whatever reasons.

[/rant]

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a monopoly is, in the strictest sense, a situation where a specific product or service is only available from one company or person (from the greek 'monos', one and 'polein', to sell). If a town only has one gas station, that gas station has a monopoly on selling gas in that town, regardless of whether or not it is sponsored by the governing body of the town.

In the Microsoft's case, it is not a 'pure' monopoly. They simply have the largest market share (somewhere north of 90%, from what I've heard) and they do their best to stay that way (FUD, buying out smaller companies, FUD, encouraging FUD in others (SCO), more FUD).

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

They are completely free to decide what all their produts are except the single piece of infrastructure that must be part of 90% personal computing devices.

I call BS

[brunes69]

Netscape died because the whole Navigator 4.x line was complete crap. It was slow and chunky, had a cluttered UI, had a horrible DHTML system (layers? ugh), and had next to no CSS support. Meanwhile IE 4.0 had excellent DHTML, was way faster even when run in Windows 95 which it was not bundled into, had great CSS support for it's day, and also had a clean UI with tons of extras.

Then, insteed of getting out a new release ASAP, they wasted time deciding to re-write the entire browser from scratch. TWICE.

MS may have killed Netscape, but only by pulling the trigger. Netscape had already shoved the gun barrel down it's own throat.

Not quite

[WindBourne]

They were sued for saying that they use ONLY vegtable oil, when in fact, they were adding animal fat. Big difference.

Probably not news even in Korea

[FishandChips]

This isn't really news. It's long been clear that Microsoft will fight every ruling against them in Korea or anywhere else using any methods to hand. And if you were sitting on a vast monopoly with gross margins of up to 85 per cent to protect, with captains of industry and heads of government queuing up to kiss your ass, you probably would too.

Tae Kwon Do Bill Gates

[jokewallpaper]

I'm sorry I really don't have any real insight to add to the discussion but had to share the mental image I got when I read the headlines: Microsoft To Fight Korean Verdict of Bill in a baggy karate gi fighting a TKD master. It wasn't pretty.

switch

[one_red_eye]

Switch to Linux and never again pay for a service that would be dirt cheap if it weren't run by a bunch of profiteering gluttons.

You are behind the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, you must have not been paying attention. The party line of the slashdot herd mentality has done a 180 in the last two years.

The whole fanatical open source thing is passe. The new fad is a violently extremist pseudo-libertarianism that can be wholly summarized as

1. If a state does it, it's evil!
2. If a company does it, it's good!

#2 applies even if the company in question is an anti-capitalist, anti-competitive entity such as monopolies like Microsoft or the baby bells.

Allow the user...

[jofi]

to remove them in the first place. MSN Messenger definitely isn't required for Windows to operate correctly (can be uninstalled via a script). Even so, people want a "Add/Remove" option that does more than delete Messenger shortcuts. WMP isn't, but if you want to view WMP formats you need the codecs atleast. There definitely should be an option to completely remove Outlook Express. IE can be removed and Windows work fine... but forget that you won't be able to use Help and Support (you may not necessarily use it).

I would completely switch to Linux, if Cedega had 100% native support for DirectX.

Mmmmmmm KFTC

[Fear the Clam]

...The KFTC continued to investigate Microsoft's practices, despite th...

For some reason I really want fried chicken.

ActiveX

[Spy der Mann]

MS may have killed Netscape, but only by pulling the trigger. Netscape had already shoved the gun barrel down it's own throat.

Yes, but I'm not talking about Netscape's death. I'm talking about MSIE's artificial domination of the market and their most stupid idea (created to "compete" with Netscape's plugins) in the world: ActiveX. The thing was a hacker's dream come true. I still remember the days where you could open an infected webpage, and a vbscript would be created on your harddrive, filling your computer with trash. I tested some of those vulnerabilities myself on a hacker webpage.

Netscape plugins worked JUST FINE, and they didn't give viruses to your computer. Microsoft's rendering engine was a great achievement, but they had to screw up with their proprietary ActiveX controls. And since they were a monopoly, they didn't have to worry about Netscape getting in the way.

But don't talk about Netscape's death so lightly. Netscape mail was the best mail program that was free at the moment (Eudora mail was shareware, it had an expiration date - i only decided to stop using NS Mail when the html mails screwed around with the html engine, and i moved to Yahoo).

And this leads us to another of Microsoft's mistakes: Outlook express, which was *BUNDLED* with Windows, too.

It seemed as if every bundled package in windows (Outlook express, MSIE, WMP, IIS) had a backdoor to be used by blackhats to mess around with our PC's.

Re:ActiveX

[drsmithy]

Yes, but I'm not talking about Netscape's death. I'm talking about MSIE's artificial domination of the market [...]

IE's domination of the market was in no way artificial. It's most explosive growth period came with the version, and during the time, when it *wasn't* bundled with Windows. People weren't using IE4 "because it was there", they were using IE4 because they'd gone out and deliberately downloaded it.

Netscape plugins worked JUST FINE, and they didn't give viruses to your computer.

What stopped them ? Certainly, today, Firefox plugins can trash your machine if you let them.

Microsoft's rendering engine was a great achievement, but they had to screw up with their proprietary ActiveX controls.

How was ActiveX more proprietry than Netscape's plugins ?

And since they were a monopoly, they didn't have to worry about Netscape getting in the way.

They didn't have to worry about Netscape getting in the way because Netscape made such a clusterfuck out of Navigator 4 and its successors. Up until that point (and for a while subsequently), they were *very* worried about Netscape.

Re:ActiveX

[SgtChaireBourne]

It seemed as if every bundled package in windows (Outlook express, MSIE, WMP, IIS) had a backdoor to be used by blackhats to mess around with our PC's.

That not only create a whole market for add-ons and other after market corrective tools, but also keeps MS shops far too busy in crisis mode putting out fires to check out competing software.

That's a big disincentive for MS to spend extra time or effort to fix, especially since competitors would receive the most benefit. There are also other interests which stand to gain from MS inaction: not just organized crime benefit from the holes, but also law enforcement and intelligence collection.

Simple solution

[suitepotato]

Design a computer with tcp/ip, http, ftp, etc native onboard with a basic interface. It connects and downloads whatever OS you want and installs it without an OS already being onboard beyond the "super bios" skeleton OS there for doing the aforementioned primary OS download. That ends the chicken and egg argument as to having to have one OS already on there to download the OS you really want. No more "Windows tax", no more preloaded PCs unless you order them that way. Everything is bare.

DRM? Fine, put it on there so that OSes that require authenticity of initial downloaded files have it to check themselves on install. Those OSes that don't, can ignore it. No other shenanigans linking the thing to only those OSes (cough, Windows, cough) that rigidly adhere to the dogma that the PC user should be the b*tch of an **AA organization.

We could have done this years ago with a simple thing like QNX onboard and finished all this crap. No muss, no fuss, no tears. Simple, easy, even a Geico caveman could do it.

Need an architecture to allow the formatting? Fine, default to FAT16 and put the primary files needed there, boot to them, they extract and build and reboot and then connect out to whatever secure servers are needed to get the rest, and finish the customer partitions and formats. This is not hard to do people.

Why does this sort of obviousness keep missing people? MS can do f-all about bundling. I don't care. I actually like them to bundle. F knows I DON'T want to have to deal with a mini-VS to compile every frigging Windows app I want to add. I like it being done already. I like having things already bundled compiled on Linux and being able to add whatever later.

Want to open a can of worms? Which serious Linux user ain't been farked by the distro coming by default with code bases that are completely wrong for something we want to use? Like the wrong net-snmp version to use with yapsnmp? Okay, uninstall, remove, reinstall, rebuild, fail that thirteen times, write off certain other things, make do. I never have to deal with this on Windows. No such thing. I'm reasonably certain writing a wrapper to put SNMP functions in Python or any other language would be a lot easier on Windows than on Linux where the slightest change in files totally fouls everything up.

Okay, I've ranted enough. The quick and dirty and ultimately best solution is right in front of us. Make the average personal computer "smart" enough to be able to go get an OS of the user's choice whenever they need. The standards and frameworks are already on the shelf. We would rather not do it in favor of bashing Microsoft and wrapping our Linux using selves in victimhood. Whatever. Not my bag. I have a night of recompiling to get to.

Just order your fries without salt then

[Anonymous Coward]

and then you'll see there's a difference in business practices between McDonalds and Microsoft. You can get burgers with or without onion, but there's for example no way to get Windows without IE.
Oh, and just for the record: one of the two is a monopoly, and the other isn't.

Stop being over-simplistic

[kylef]

They were convicted of breaking the law in America.

Except this lawsuit is in South Korea and doesn't have anything to do with the Netscape vs. IE bundling case. The complaint South Korea has filed relates to including Windows Messenger as part of Windows, which a South Korean firm named "Daum Communications" claims is impeding their ability to compete in the IM market.

The point is, every country on the planet has some little company which makes a product that competes with something inside Windows. So where do these lawsuits end? These types of verdicts are thinly disguised extortion of a hated American company.

So Microsoft broke the law in America, was convicted in a court of law, and no one ever did anything to make them stop breaking the law. So is it that surprising that they're breaking the law in the rest of the world as well?

Your argument seems to be, "Well, they were convicted of competing illegally against Netscape in the U.S., therefore all of their other business practices are probably illegal too." In other words, now they are guilty until proven innocent. It's faulty reasoning. Every situation is different.

If Microsoft would obey the law, they wouldn't have to pay these fines and settlements and whatnot.

You keep using the expressions "break the law" and "obey the law" as though the law is clear-cut in these circumstances. Your view of "the law" is incredibly naive: the law is anything but clear here. What exactly do you want Microsoft to do in the Korean case to "Obey the law"? Please explain what *specifically* they must do to be a "law-abiding" company in your eyes, or rather what they are currently doing that is specifically illegal in your view?

The specifics of this case are *very* weak for the Korean government. It's not even clear that Microsoft knew anything about this little company named Daum Communications when Windows Messenger was added. It is a completely different situation to the IE vs. Netscape situation, where Microsoft clearly aimed its strategy at taking out Netscape as a competitive entity. If you don't even know about a competitor or don't even consider them a competitor, how can you be guilty of conspiring against them?

Re:Stop being over-simplistic

[nvrrobx]

Microsoft may not have known about Daum Communications specifically, but they absolutely knew about other companies in the instant messenger space. AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, etc. Microsoft actively spent time trying to make MSN Messenger interop with AOL in late 1999/early 2000, only to have AOL constantly break the protocol they were using, until Microsoft finally gave up. (This isn't speculation - I worked at MSFT. I ran the Messenger betas that worked with AIM.)

I'd be hard pressed to believe that bundling Windows Messenger was not yet another attempt by Microsoft to make their product the de-facto standard.

I don't think that bundling is a bad thing, I just want the ability to selectively choose to install components or remove them that I don't want.

Re:Stop being over-simplistic

[Bert64]

Because where does it stop...
Browser and instant messenger today... what next? Any bundling gives microsoft an unfair advantage, and lets them pedal inferior products while still gaining market share.

In a few years time, what's to stop windows costing $5000 and come bundled with everything anyone is likely to use, including hardware?

Re:Stop being over-simplistic

[kylef]

Microsoft may not have known about Daum Communications specifically, but they absolutely knew about other companies in the instant messenger space. AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, etc.

How many ways do I have to say this? Those companies aren't suing Microsoft, and this lawsuit has nothing to do with AIM or ICQ or Yahoo, just like it has nothing to do with Netscape. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.

If you can't keep your issues separate, you have only managed to pollute the integrity of a legal system which has jurisdiction over EVERYONE. Just because it's happening to Microsoft now, who you happen to hate, doesn't mean that it won't happen to someone you appreciate tomorrow.

This Korean verdict is outrageous and sets horrible precedent for international commerce law. Personally, if I were running a company and choosing markets to enter, I would look at court decisions like this and think twice before entering the Korean market before others.

When I worked at McDonalds.

[Belial6]

It has been a lot of years, but when I worked in a McDonalds in the late 80s, you definitly could get fries without salt. It was a relatively simple process to clear a section of the warmer, wipe it down to remove any salt, and dump a fresh batch of fries into the clean section. We did this several times a day for those that didn't want salt. Mind you, at this time we cooked pancakes to order, as opposed to microwaving pre-cooked pancakes, so things might have changed. Heck back then people would call us liars because they would ask us to put something in the microwave, and couldn't believe that there wasn't one.

KFTC... or KFC?

[Money for Nothin']

Did anybody else misread "KFTC" as "KFC" on first glance? I did, and I wondered why a petty peddler of putrid poultry possessed people to pass prejudice on a purveyor of piss-poor programs...

Re:KFTC... or KFC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your pedantic post is pregnant with p's.