Time For Anti-Trust 2.0?

An anonymous reader writes, "PC manufacturer Acer is complaining that Microsoft has jacked up the price of Vista, and that the basic versions are so basic no one will ship them. Since the collapse of the Microsoft anti-trust case under the Bush administration in 2001, manufacturers have no choice but to accede, adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of each PC. With Gates now proclaiming victory over European regulators, Microsoft once again seems unstoppable. But Microsoft had drawn itself close to the Republican Party. With the Republicans now evicted from the House and Senate, is it time to look at the Microsoft anti-trust suit? Could Microsoft be compelled to lower its inflating Vista prices, or to open their tech or even supply funding to Linux-flavored Windows such as Wine? What do Slashdot readers think about the likelihood of another go at breaking up the Windows monopoly?"

Comments

Antitrust because of prices? no thanks

[EsbenMoseHansen]

I welcome high prices on w32. There are alternatives, said manufactures could just install one of those.

Now, if the prices dependent on not selling anything by w32, I can see the point, and that should be fined so heavily that they never, ever dream of doing it again.

Re:Antitrust because of prices? no thanks

[Waffle Iron]

It's really too bad our society is moving away from the free-enterprise capitalism market that made the US so great so quickly and moving towards a feel-good socialistic system.

We can start fixing that by paring back on the runaway government entitlement program called "copyright". Few people seem to remember that just a few decades ago binary object files were not generally considered to be copyrightable at all. If push back against ever-expanding government meddling and move back to that interpretation, then the whole problem with Microsoft interfering with the free market would go away.

Re:Antitrust because of prices? no thanks

[jc42]

I agree. There is nothing wrong with MS charging more for their product. They are not a complete monopoly seeing how Linux and OSX are both alternatives.

Actually, MS's approach is one example of a standard anti-free-market practice that monopolies, duopolies, cartels and such have used for centuries.

It's not a secret that hardly any of the distributors pay "list price" for Windows. The usual sort of anti-competitive contract is used: You get a "special" lower price if you don't sell any competing products. The list price is made high enough that all the distributors take the contract. This effectively locks out startups from the distribution channels.

A textbook example in the US is the way that so many stores and gas stations have either Coke or Pepsi vending machines, but not both. A retail outlet that tries to provide both can be hit with a higher wholesale price for both.

Some US states have outlawed this sort of contract, and in those states, you can get more choice and competition. But there are limits to how effective any but the largest states can be. With companies the size of Microsoft and Dell, such a state law is rather meaningless.

Anyway, MS's management doesn't expect to get list price for Windows from hardly anyone but retail customers trying to upgrade. The main point of such prices is to maintain the lock on retail distribution channels via "special" discounts to distributors.

With computers, a "free market" has never existed, and probably never will. We've always had one 800-pound-gorilla with the ability to lock out most of the competition, except for specialized niche markets that don't much interest the big guy. In such a situation, competition can never develop, at least not without government "interference" via pro-market laws.

Re:Antitrust because of prices? no thanks

[Jerry]

It's really too bad our society is moving away from the free-enterprise capitalism market that made the US so great so quickly and moving towards a feel-good socialistic system.

I would have bought that argument 20 years ago, but no longer.

"Free Enterprise" is no longer about freedom to do business.

It is NOW about NAFTA shipping jobs out of the country to the benefit of a few owners.
It is about hiring illegals to avoid taxes - again so owners can profit AND avoid paying taxes.
It is about making copyright terms last centuries, thus depriving society of any real benefit of an invention.
It is about academic researchers doing research with gov money and then personally patenting discoveries tax payers paid for in order to charge exhorbant "license" fees.
It is about health insurance companies "coordinating" benefits so that the gov pays first and they pick up the difference, but still collect the FULL premium.
It is about EULA's, DRMs, and other unholy contracts that remove freedoms which the Constitution says are "inalienable".
It is about seven mansions and other perks that greedy people aspire to, no matter how many thousands of employees lose their saving, pensions, retirements, savings and homes.
It is about having offices in one state but doing retail sales out of Nevada, to avoid their fair share of taxes, all the while lecturing Oregonians about not paying their fair share of taxes.
It is about calling your customers thieves, and treating them as such and sending out BSA thugs, with police to protect THEM, to raid your businesses for not paying for "protection".

I could go on, because the list is becomming endless. The basic problem is that an artifical legal device, the "corpus" now has MORE rights and protections that a REAL, LIVING person.

Re:Basic version? Yes, please!

[PriyanPhoenix]

Although it's true that many people can do without the bundled Media Centre in preference of alternatives and will probably experience *better* performance Aero-free, that's not all they've stripped out. Laptop users with basic may be feeling a little chilly without Windows Mobility Centre. Sure, you don't *need* it travel, connect wirelessly and work, but in this day and age of mobile communication those are pretty basic OS features they've decided to limit to enhanced editions. The other issue is that Aero is not purely aesthetic and does offer some functional usability features too. Just how long it will be until a developer of one of those Open Source apps you love decides to utilise a cool element of the Aero interface, forgetting momentarily that not everyone has it. After all, he doesn't code for Macs for exactly that reason...