The Future of Innovation At Stake?

Neuropol writes "Next week, Microsoft will launch a challenge against the European Union's highest court. The European Commission will need to decide if they are to overturn the EU Court's 2004 Anti-Trust case ruling. Amid arguments over the usual suspects like Windows Media Player, one of the key points of the CNN article that caught my attention was this quote from a EU Commission lawyer stating that Microsoft aims 'to eliminate the openness of the Internet, to proprietize the Internet, the lawyer said, adding the groundwork will be laid in Microsoft's forthcoming new operating system, Vista.'"

Comments

where's the urgency?

[xIcemanx]

Microsoft aims 'to eliminate the openness of the Internet, to proprietize the Internet, the lawyer said, adding the groundwork will be laid in Microsoft's forthcoming new operating system, Vista.

Well if that's the case then we have nothing to worry about.

Re:where's the urgency?

[jarrell]

I would comment on this article, but slashdot is sadly behind the times and doesn't support my Microsoft Slashdot (tm) Reader's (tm) Article Post (pat. pend. microsoft) Internet (tm) Extension (tm), or even the patentend "Click-to-post" button... I'm afraid until Slashdot straightens up and supports modern (microsoft) interoperable (microsoft) standards, and joins the (microsoft) internet that they'll be sadly left behind. (tm)

Old dog, old tricks.

[yagu]

Key article quote:

"What Microsoft is talking about is freedom for them to innovate, not others," said lawyer Thomas Vinje, representing a group of competitors that will speak at the hearing."

and:

Last year, Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer told Germany's Manager Magazin: "We needed the first years to conquer the PC and those following to be ahead in the server business. In the upcoming years we'll conquer the Internet."

Seems Microsoft, et. al., especially Balmer are back to their old swagger when they talk so boldly about "conquering". Remember Ballmer, during the US DOJ investigation was the one who said "Janet Reno can go to Hell."

(And, before any business experts go off on "a company's business is to make money by conquering a market", remember, Microsoft is already convicted of abusing its monopoly position to introduce an imbalance in other markets. This is exactly the position Balmer takes so boldly in his interview.)

Amazing.

Re:Old dog, old tricks.

[IAmTheDave]

first Last year, Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer told Germany's Manager Magazin: "We needed the first years to conquer the PC and those following to be ahead in the server business. In the upcoming years we'll conquer the Internet." Yeah? And? Hey look, they're a company, and they win. They find a market, they go to it, and they win. Look, fining MS isn't going to do anything. If you're concerned about a monopoly, split up the company, AT&T style. A fine is useless. An MS is not - I repeat - NOT - stifiling innovation. Please. MS never broke up a company Homer Simpson style. Every company they bought sold to them. Every company that went under lost to them. I dislike MS a lot. I am a moderate Apple fan boy. But I don't discredit MS's position. Break them up, or stop crying. (*Holds hands over head, prepares for flaming and seriously painful modding...*)

Re:Old dog, old tricks.

[gowen]

You didn't even take any notice that this point was answered in the post you were replying to.

Abuse of monopoly power to conquer a new market is illegal, and MS have been convicted of it in the US and the EU. Free market capitalism needs a level playing field.

Re:Old dog, old tricks.

[grahamkg]

I agree with you. I hate MS products, but this is business. MS defines each generation x86 PC through their logo program, and - guess what? - companies build equipment to that spec by their choice. And mods, it's not flamebait.

Re:Old dog, old tricks.

[Bogtha]

What Microsoft is talking about is freedom for them to innovate, not others

Not even that. Since when is it innovative to simply bundle an application that works in the same way as multiple competing applications? Just become it comes with the OS instead of having to be installed separately, it doesn't mean it's innovative.

Re:Old dog, old tricks.

[zerocool^]

I heard they weren't going to conquer the intrnet.

I head they WERE GOING TO FUCKING KILL THE INTERNET! *THROWS CHAIR*

Re:Old dog, old tricks.

[datadriven]

why weren't they dealt the same blow as AT&T and the railways?

Because they paid big bucks to aid with the Bush Campaign.

Re:Old dog, old tricks.

[LordOfTheNoobs]

Gates : Hey steve, looks like we're going to be taking a 500 million euro fine in sector 3.
Balmer shifts a single bead on an abacus labeled `War Chest'
Balmer : So?

Re:Old dog, old tricks.

[FyRE666]

How's the weather up there in your cloud of ignorance. I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just completely misguided. MS have (and this is documented by hard evidence that anyone with an ounce of sense can dig up on Google) put competitors out of business by using their monopoly position on many occasions.

In fact, a company I worked at saw this happen first hand where MS forced Compaq to use its product; which was riddled with bugs, and had far less features than the competition, despite requiring twice the amount of Flash memory. This was the absolute opposite of innovation, it was holding the hardware back, customers were getting a woefully bad product, and Compaq only complied due to the implied repercusions if it used a competitor.

Re:Old dog, old tricks.

[passthecrackpipe]

MS is not being fined by the EU for being a monopolist, or for being a successful company, or anything of the sort. They are being fined because the EU made some specific demand, like - produce working, legible, understandable and implementable specifications for your interoperability protocol suite - CIFS etc. - and they refuse to do so, obfuscating everything.

The EU doesn't much care if every server in the EU is a windows server, but they do want to make that others have a chance of actually interoperating with those servers. Splitting up MS isn't going to achieve that, but fines will.

Re:Old dog, old tricks.

[WhiteWolf666]

Please. MS never broke up a company Homer Simpson style. Every company they bought sold to them. Every company that went under lost to them.

Stacker. Caldera/Novell. IBM's OS/2 division.

Those are three examples that I can think of off the top of my head. In each of those situations MS "allied" with a company, than stabbed them behind the back. Stacker went under because of it, even though they won in court years later (after the company was gutted).

MS's strategy of "commit crime now, pay fine later after opponent is dead" works out rather well for them.

Sharks with friggen lasers

[MECC]

"In the upcoming years we'll conquer the Internet."

If MS does manage to 'conquer the internet', that would be like the Catholic church successfully conquering that irritating 'printing press' when it first showed up. After, it was being used to print unauthorized material that was distributed by a network of individuals via unauthorized channels, worst of all information critical of the holy mother church. The horror.

The more they tighten their grasp, the more of the internet will slip through their fingers....

Re:Sharks with friggen lasers

[Mayhem178]

The more they tighten their grasp, the more of the internet will slip through their fingers....

Microsoft: Not after we demonstrate the power of this new operating system. In a way, you have determined the choice of the market that will be destroyed first. Since you are reluctant to provide us with control over the Internet, we have chosen to test this operating system's destructive power on your home PC!

Consumers: No! We are peaceful! We have no weapons, you can't possibly...

Microsoft: You prefer another target, a server-based target? Then name the company!

Consumers: ...

Microsoft: We grow tired of asking this, so it'll be the last time. What can we do to control the world?

Re:Sharks with friggen lasers

[x1n933k]

I'd like to point out if you look at the business model of a lot of companies it is, in fact, for complete and global dominance with their product.

Can we blame Microsoft for having the spot it does? No. I don't think so. Millions have been paying for Windows to be their system of choice. PC took off, Windows/DOS was easy and known and was able to keep up with changing software and demands (Though, perhaps as unstable as it could be sometimes).

I guess what starts to come about is when do we draw the line? MS is a force to be reckon'd with. Having a huge budget and a huge market that not many others can compete with. So they expand into other software and then, because people use it--they bundle it and really make it a part of the starting package so you don't need to go anywhere until you're unhappy.

I'm a Apple user now. But I stil use MS Office because mostly a great word processor, second because it is supported. I've used OpenOffice on GNU/Linux system that I had, and I enjoy it too, but it isn't ready to replace it for me.

I liked what I read from other users too. There are great projects out there with are under GNU or open source. To make a difference though, software companies need to be portable--this is why these projects stand a chance.

Things that scare me are not just one company to rule them all and, one company to guide them--it's constant pirating that puts other software vendors who make good products sales down.

Meh, i lost my train of though. Soon we'll just deck-in and cause havoc on marjor corporations and goverments if need be when things get tigt. yukmyuk

[J]

Re:Sharks with friggen lasers

[advocate_one]

Can we blame Microsoft for having the spot it does? No. I don't think so. Millions have been paying for Windows to be their system of choice.

bollocks... millions have never had a choice... they're victims of Microsoft's monopolistic abuses in the OEM market... OEMS forced to pay for windows even though they were shipping OS2 on machines... cliff-tiered pricing for OEM copies that made it completely uneconomical to put anything else on the machines... kickbacks in the form of market development funds for OEMs promoting only windows on machines... why else do all the PC makers have that XXX reccomends Microsoft Windows XP on their machines??? they get paid for it and if they promote any other OS actively they lose the market development funds... why else do you find the Dell Linux machines well buried in the website with no direct links to them... you have to actively search for them.

No...innovation is not at stake

[PenguinBoyDave]

Like life, creative people will find a way. Some of the most brilliant and creative people I have ever met are Open Source people who, against the odds, have successfully taken on the giants and done so well. Red Hat, MySQL, Firefox...just to name a few. Talking about new and creative products, one only need look to SPLUNK.

The only people who see innovation as dead are those who don't thin it is possible to create. I'm not creative...I'll admit that. But I don't think everyone will throw in the towel, and I think some of the best is yet to come...from the Open Source community.

This Latest Microsoft Arguement Reminds Me...

[Anonymous Coward]

This latest Microsoft argument reminds me of one of my favorite things in the whole world.

And that is watching someone get so mad that not only do they stop making sense, but they lose the ability to even form grammatically sensible sentences.

Seeing someone, or in this case, company just fucking lose it is a rare and wonderful sight to see.

It's been their goal all along

[El Cubano]

Microsoft aims 'to eliminate the openness of the Internet, to proprietize the Internet, the lawyer said, adding the groundwork will be laid in Microsoft's forthcoming new operating system, Vista.'

That has been their goal since the inception of Microsoft Network. They saw how lucrative Prodigy and Compuserver and AOL were and wanted to get in on the action. The problem was that they were too late and those services were already on the decline in favor of more open Internet access. "You mean I can send a message to by friend who has Compuserve even though I am on AOL?"

Basically, they have been trying to bring the world back to the "bad old days".

Re:It's been their goal all along

[tarpitcod]

Its the 'Walled Garden' approach - and the market has shown that getting it right is tough.

To get it right you need to either:

1) Offer unique content / services / paradigm which has more value than other freely (or cheaper) content from another source

2) Make a big wall - so the consumer has no choice.

Doing 1) Is tough - case in point - AOL.
Doing 2) Consumers will run away to the more 'free' choice.

There are counter examples - I mean this is on Slashdot - so clearly Slashdot holds some value which results in the usage of it.

The 'do it all' and extend with proprietary extensions concept is common. You still have to do 1) - if you add proprietary goo that doesn't do something useful nobody will use it / people will use the more open standard.

Even if your standard is better you may lose the war too if theres something else out there that is 'good enough' and cheaper...

Old argument

[Billosaur]

The Commission found Microsoft tied its own Windows Media Player so it would appear on every computer running Windows, unfairly competing against RealNetworks' Real Player and others.

Yes, bundling Media Player with Windows gives MS an unfair advantage givent their market penetration. However, Windows does not prevent you from downloading any media software you want and using it. This is the same intellectualization people use when they talk about offensive books or TV programs. Yes, these things are readily available, but if you don't like their content, you can always refuse to read those books or watch those programs. And so it goes with Windows: use Media Player or don't -- you have a choice.

In the end, it isn't about Media Player, per se, but Microsoft's domination of the software market. However, all the EU is doing is poking Gulliver with their Lilliputian sticks. Unless the EU plans on banning Microsoft entriely (and how could they!), they will never be able to put enough of a chokehold on Ballmer and Company to seriously dent their market share.

Re:Old argument

[Billosaur]

Am I the only person who remembers accusations that Microsoft released a patch to Windows that caused Real Player to malfunction?

Real Player has always been able to malfunction well enough without Microsoft's help -- they just enhanced the process.

Re:Old argument

[The_Noid]

This isn't about the player itself, it's about the codecs.
If you as content provider want to distribute something to a large audience you have to choose a codec. So what are you going to choose?
A. Real, that isn't installed on just about every computer on the planet, meaning a large part of you audience will have to search for a player and install it. Meaning most won't bother with your content cause it's too much of a hassle.
B. WMV, wich directly plays on just about every machine without problems...

Most providers will go for B, don't you think?

This means that Microsoft is using it's dominance in the OS market to get a monopoly in the Codecs market... and that's illegal. That's what they've been convicted for, and they are now trying to get out of the punishment.

Re:Old argument

[ZachPruckowski]

You and I can get Firefox or real player on the web, but there are a lot of people out there who can't, simply because using the computer for more than Word and CNN.com and e-mail. And anything that has more than 3 steps is going to be hard for them to do on their own. My parents are thrilled they've figured out how to IM me, and they've owned a computer for 10 years.

Re:Old argument

[Kjella]

And so it goes with Windows: use Media Player or don't -- you have a choice.

In theory you do, in practise they're using their monopoly so that it isn't rational. Imagine you're building a car from parts, and Microsoft has a monopoly on the engine block. Then they start shipping "free" carburators with each engine block. Of course, they're not actually free because you sure paid for them somehow but if you want anything else, you have to not only pay full price for new ones (which can't cross-subsidize like that) and go through the hassle of installing them. Pretty soon Microsoft has taken over the carburator market. Then they start to work on another part. Lather, rinse, repeat.

For each step is becomes more and more difficult for any independent parts maker to contribute anything at all to a car. Creating a whole non-MS car is more and more difficult because more and more parts are MS-only, which you have to replace all off (remember, they won't give you separate parts). Hell, many of the other parts makers have deals that prevent them from helping them either directly (exclusivity) or indirectly (rebates on exclusivity = penalties for helping competition).

This is not competition in any sense of the word. This is a monopoly strong-arming others out of a related market. To say that you have a choice is just silly when the whole point is that they're using the monopoly to ensure that you get the product whether you want to or not, and whether you want to pay for it or not. You almost always have choices, like doing without it at all. Or to pay a higher price to replace the "free" parts. Abuse of monopoly isn't about taking away all the choices, just about taking away all the rational choices.

Re:Old argument

[1u3hr]

However, Windows does not prevent you from downloading any media software you want and using it.

The point is that those providing the media know that EVERYONE has WMP. so why not use Windows Media formats? Why not use Windows Media DRM? Ten years ago, when someone said they would "send me a file", I could get WordPerfect, WordStar, IBM Displaywrite, etc, etc. Now the ONLY format you get is MS Word. And though standardising is simpler in many ways, it would be even better if it were an open standard. With visual and audio media there are already several viable open standards; MS aims to marginalise these. You can download any media player you want, but good luck finding media to play on them if this goes on.

Proprietize?

[boog3r]

Proprietize? How is Microsoft going to bring propriety to the internet?

Perhaps you meant proprietarize, to bring proprietary to the internet?

You should quitize using izes... you are havizing no needize to verbalize a noun all the time...

So, this why ...

[tddoog]

the real player still exists. (FTA) RealNetworks gave up competing last year after Microsoft paid it $761 million to settle a private antitrust suit and for a marketing agreement.

I have always wondered how they have survived.

WinFX

[Overly Critical Guy]

Microsoft aims 'to eliminate the openness of the Internet, to proprietize the Internet, the lawyer said, adding the groundwork will be laid in Microsoft's forthcoming new operating system, Vista.'"

For those who don't know, he's probably referring specifically to WinFX APIs including XAML that allow you to download and run an app through IE. So it's a clever attempt at replacing/renaming ActiveX and making the web a Windows-dependent app delivery platform. It will be sad if they succeed, since the formerly platform-independent web will become little more than a content house for IE-delivered Vista apps.

Re:Just say "no"

[ZenKen]

Except that Windows is not addictive, and withdrawal symptoms are mild.

Legitimate Concerns

[Atomm]

Personally, I became concerned when I learned that Microsoft had rewritten the TCP/IP stack in Vista/Longhorn and added some of their own protocols.

For those who do not understand, the TCP/IP stack in almost all OSes is based on the original BSD stack. The protocols all have specific rules. Every part of the OSI Layers serves a specific function. It works and should not be monkeyed with.

It is scary when Microsoft decides they can do something better than the IEEE. Anyone remember WINS? How well did that work? It seems they learned their lesson. Now, instead of trying to compete with TCP/IP, they are going to rewrite their own needs into the protocols. This is very, very scary.

Here are the boring technical details.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns /cableguy/cg0905.mspx

Be afraid, be very afraid.....

Re:Legitimate Concerns

[110010001000]

Um, yeah, sorry. They aren't changing TCP/IP. They are just adding API features to the stack and better v6 support. Hate to break it to ya, but modern TCP/IP stacks are not just code copied from a BSD. They have been added to and portions have been rewritten.

Heres an example of some of the features they added:

-Reconfigure without having to restart the computer
-New support for scaling on multi-processor computers
-Easier kernel mode network programming

There is nothing in the article that suggests changes/enhancements to the protocol itself.

Of course you will be modded up to +5 and I will be modded to oblivion, but I thought I might throw the truth out there for those that are interested.

Oh and BTW: The whole EU process is one thing - getting the lawyers rich on both sides. You should not be cheering them on. They will come after anyone in IT if they think they can make a buck.

Re:that attitude will get you far

[IANAAC]

yeah there's some non-windows computer jobs out there, but they are very few and far inbetween.

There are PLENTY of non-windows jobs. Take a look on Dice sometime. Just because part of the office uses Windows doesn't mean a Solaris admin needs to. The last two sysadmin jobs I had were for HPC clusters and Oracle DB clusters. The mail system was Notes, not Exchange.

All of my tools were Unix-based.

Now, if you're talking about sales, front office support, stuff like that, then yes Windows is probably required. But don't say that non-Windows jobs are few and far between. It's simply not true.

Re:Semantics are important here

[Decaff]

Why trust the EU to get this right and then not go after SuSE and RedHat for bundling only one or two players and integrating them into KDE and GNOME?

Because KDE and GNOME are not in a monopoly situation.

someone got a little confused here

[theonlyholle]

The European Commission will need to decide if they are to overturn the EU Court's 2004 Anti-Trust case ruling

Ehm... it's the other way round - the commission is part of the executive and its decision is now undergoing judicial review by the court... it may sometimes seem like it, but the EU is not a bunch of banana republics where the executive controls the courts ;)

definitions

[psbrogna]

There appears to be some confusion over the definition of "forthcoming". It's unlikely you'd say for example "the forthcoming heat death of the universe."

Re:that attitude will get you far

[JeanBaptiste]

True, I am only speaking from my own firsthand knowledge as a freelance programmer over the last 8 years or so. 99% of the clients that I take on want thier code done in Visual Studio, mostly for maintainability reasons.

Its probably different in the sysadmin world.

But if you are writing code that is going to be used by end users, its a pretty low chance that its going to be for a non-windows platform.

Yeah. Good luck on that one.

[ficken]

..."Microsoft aims 'to eliminate the openness of the Internet, to proprietize the Internet, the lawyer said, adding the groundwork will be laid in Microsoft's forthcoming new operating system, Vista.'"...

Yeah, good luck on that one. Considering most DNS/web servers run *nix/Cisco and Apache (respectively) I do not see how a desktop OS could 'proprietize' the Internet...there are too many server admins out there that are *nix junkies. If M$ somehow does stop networks from talking to each other, it will defy the essential definition of the Internet. Then the world will go back to the 1970's before Arpanet joined everyone together.

Bundling

[tarpitcod]

The problem with this argument is that your trying to artifically say what a product should be. If a company chooses to expend effort (cost/time/etc) then that's their choice.

I mean if you take the 'anti' bundling argument to the logical nth degree you could hear someone say:

1) No OS should come with threads - processes are enough, and bundling in 'threads' is an attempt to stop good hard working folks from selling their thread implementation.

2) TCP/IP stack? What! With the OS? That's anti competitive! Your stopping all those other good hard-working folks from selling their own protocol stack! Your putting them out of business! You big nasty evil corporation!

I don't want governments deciding what someone can put in a product. That's a slippery pathway to doom.

If you applied the bundling argument to car manfuacturers: What! Your including a stereo with the car? That's anti-competitive and your putting all those good hard working folks who make and install ...

Ultimately the market will decide - that's a market economy. If a company invests too much effort putting what I as a consumer consider useless/unimportant features into a product and thus have to charge more for it to cover the costs associated I can go use/buy the product which is just the lean metal.

Now if a company is purposely making other software not work with theirs, and lying about why then that's a bit rough for the small company, but ultimately they may pay the price of not selling more units of their product which used to work...

It's a tough tradeoff.

Re:Bundling

[vux984]

I don't want governments deciding what someone can put in a product. That's a slippery pathway to doom.

Not "someone", *MONOPOLIES*. And *not* limiting the scope of their product is the slippery pathway to doom.

Ultimately the market will decide - that's a market economy.

No it won't. Monopolies are not "market economies".

If a company invests too much effort putting what I as a consumer consider useless/unimportant features into a product and thus have to charge more for it to cover the costs associated I can go use/buy the product which is just the lean metal.

No you can't. If the company has a monopoly, there are NO "other products". That is practically the *definition* of a monopoly.

Market forces do NOT correct monopolies. Monopolies are market FAILURES. The market WON'T and CAN'T regulate them, which is why government HAS to step in.

Give them what they want

[carric]

This is idiotic... let's say the EU gets their way and MS has to rip out media player, IE, etc. Now what are people going to do? Buy something else?? If they don't put IE in the OS, people will either download IE or Firefox. If they take away media player, people will download media player, quicktime, and MAYBE the free version of real audio. Now what the hell has been accomplished?? I realize everyone loves to hate MS, and I have my share of issues with them, but honestly, hasn't packaging all the stuff WITH windows made running a PC cheaper? I remember when Netscape was like $40. IE is the reason we don't have to pay that anymore, so go ahead and "put your hate on", but I'm all for getting free stuff.

Re:Semantics are important here

[howlingmadhowie]

more importantly, to the best of my knowledge, neither xine or mplayer are affiliated with suse or red hat. xine and mplayer are both open source companies, and they are also the best available products. they also support a number of different file types while not introducing new, proprietary file types. if either xine or mplayer did design a new file type, it would be trivial for other players to support this. they do not have any 'inside information' as to how gnu/linux works.

also there is, to the best of my knowledge, not a single company which sells a proprietary media player for the gnu/linux operating system (though maybe i'm wrong here). consequently, nobody is loosing sales because of the bundling.

howie

What if

[TheLastUser]

What if none of these other viewers will allow you to view the content produced/consumed by WMP? How much of a choice do you have then? I don't think that anyone cares if MS adds a piece of software, but what they always do is add a piece of software that uses a secret, propritary, copyrighted, and/or DRM'ed data format to ensure that no one else can compete by simply building a better media player.

NFS/SMB: If nobody can connect to your server who will use your filer?
MSIE: If you can't view the "best viewed with MSIE" web pages who will use the browser?
MS Office: If you can't read the file who will use your word processor?
WMV: If you can't view DRM'ed data who will use your player?

This is how MS "competes". They block everyone else by first leveraging their OS monopoly to gain market share for the new product, then they ensure that the new product has a secret format so that competitors spend all of their time reverse engineering the protocol. Or better yet the data is cryptoed and a law gets passed that makes it illegal to even try.

This strategy has worked well for MS, their products don't need to be innovative, they just have to be OK. As long as they don't completely suck, enough people will use them that they can kill off competition with their MS only "enhancements" (read cryptoed data format, unpublised behavior). Look at MSIE, upon achieving market dominance, they completely stopped development. No popup blockers, no tabbed browsing, no gestures, bad CSS support, etc., etc. Did everyone start using Firefox? Nope, MSIE still worked ok and coupled with the occasional site that proclaims "You are using an unsupported browser, please go away", people are unlikely to move to a different browser.