Opening Statements Begin in Microsoft - Iowa Case

cc writes "The Des Moines Register is reporting that opening statements have begun in the Microsoft-Iowa antitrust case. The Register reports that the Plaintiffs have shaped their case around nine stories involving competitors from IBM to Linux. Microsoft attorneys say Gates is expected to testify in January, and company CEO Steve Ballmer will likely appear in February. Both men are expected to be on the stand for about four days. Unlike previous antitrust cases against the software giant, the Iowa case is seeking additional damages for security vulnerabilities. Plaintiffs allege that Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows caused harm to consumers by increasing the consumer's susceptibility to security breaches and bugs. The case is one of the largest antitrust cases in history, encompassing millions of documents and Microsoft's business practices during the last 20 years."

Comments

and..,.?

[User 956]

Plaintiffs allege that Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows caused harm to consumers by increasing the consumer's susceptibility to security breaches and bugs.

Apple does the same thing with Safari. Or does that not count? If bundling is bad, hold everybody to the same standard.

Re:and..,.?

[irtza]

How much harm has come from Apple bundling Safari? How much harm has come from Microsoft bundling IE? In court, damages play a significant role in deciding whether or not to prosecute. It is up to the state to see if significant harm has come of an action. Also, there are different standards for monopolies and non-monopolies. Is this fair? Yes, especially when corporations are nothing more than legal entities that obtain their monopoly status through government protection. There is nothing wrong with the government undermining large corporations for the greater good. The notion of corporations exist to serve the public good and must be regulated to that end. Apple has done little to damage the market place, so even if they do participate in bad practices, it may not be worth the effort from the standpoint of politicians to persue a case against them. I see nothing wrong with their decision to go after microsoft.... mainly because I have no stock in the company

Re:and..,.?

[paxswill]

Key difference: You can delete Safari, and Mac OS X doesn't break.

Re:and..,.?

[thestuckmud]

Apple's practice of bundling of Safari with OS X is very different from Microsoft's IE policy.

First, as I recall, Apple provided IE when I bought my old PowerBook. Safari had to be downloaded separately. Microsoft dropped IE support for OS X in 2003, leaving Apple unable to offer an up to date IE.

Second, Safari is an application like any other. I could uninstall it like any other app, but it happens to be useful and reliable (though Firefox is my browser of choice). Conversely, IE holds a privileged position in Windows and cannot be removed easily.

Third, Apple has not used Safari to crush competitors.

Does that cover it?

Re:and..,.?

[chromatic]

I posit that Microsoft's decision to bundle IE is what ultimately gave us the development of Firefox.

There'd be fewer members of MADD if drunk drivers hadn't killed their loved ones too, but I'm not sure you ought to defend vehicular manslaughter.

Re:and..,.?

[Millenniumman]

How much harm has come from Apple bundling Safari? How much harm has come from Microsoft bundling IE? In court, damages play a significant role in deciding whether or not to prosecute. Sure, but there has to be a crime in the first place. Configuring your software in a way that displeases some people is not a crime in any sense, even if it is insecure (warranties/guarantees/etc. aside, but Microsoft has never guaranteed Windows is impervious anyway). In the end, "harm" has only come to those who bought the product and used it (generally without proper precaution, I might add). Should I sue a pen maker if I poke myself in the eye?

Also, there are different standards for monopolies and non-monopolies. Is this fair? Yes, especially when corporations are nothing more than legal entities that obtain their monopoly status through government protection. Microsoft is not a monopoly. A monopoly is, from Oxford Dictionary, a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service. Microsoft does not have exclusive control at all. They have very significant control, but anyone can and many have come out with a competing product. Not all that many people are looking for one, but they can and do exist.

Also, Microsoft did not obtain a monopoly through government protection. It got an overwhelming market presence (which you incorrectly call a monopoly) by selling it's product in a (generally) free market.

There is nothing wrong with the government undermining large corporations for the greater good. The notion of corporations exist to serve the public good and must be regulated to that end. Corporations would exist, in some form or another, regardless of laws (except, possibly, in a totalitarian region where such organization was not allowed). The notion of corporations exists so that the law can be applied to such groups in a manner that fits with their situation rather than that of a person.

"The greater good" can mean a lot of things, and is not a sufficient reason to begin messing with people, whether they choose to act independently or as a group.

I see nothing wrong with their decision to go after microsoft.... mainly because I have no stock in the company So anything you don't have a direct financial interest in is perfectly okay for the government to rob?

Re:and..,.?

[rm69990]

If you want to hold Apple to that standard, you'd better be damn rich so you can buy a hell of a lot of Macs, because Apple will need more than 3 or 4% of the Desktop market before they can be charged under Antitrust laws. You know, the ones that apply to Monopolies, as in, companies that have more than 3 or 4% of a market. Seems like a simple concept to me personally....

Re:and..,.?

[Arker]

No difference. You can do the same in Windows. Deleting iexplore.exe is trivial and harmless.

That's because iexplore.exe is NOT Internet Explorer. It's just a shell. You cannot remove the actual code, and the many security breaches it contains, without causing serious problems.

Re:and..,.?

[unapersson]

"Microsoft is not a monopoly. A monopoly is, from Oxford Dictionary, a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service. Microsoft does not have exclusive control at all. They have very significant control, but anyone can and many have come out with a competing product. Not all that many people are looking for one, but they can and do exist."

What about the high street consumer PC market? As far as those shops go alternate operating systems may as well not exist, you'd struggle to buy even a "naked" PC because of the monopoly control Microsoft have in the market. You have an easier time finding a high street food outlet not selling Coke.

Re:and..,.?

[sumdumass]

Sure, but there has to be a crime in the first place. Configuring your software in a way that displeases some people is not a crime in any sense, even if it is insecure (warranties/guarantees/etc. aside, but Microsoft has never guaranteed Windows is impervious anyway). In the end, "harm" has only come to those who bought the product and used it (generally without proper precaution, I might add). Should I sue a pen maker if I poke myself in the eye?

The crime would be leveraging a position in a specific market to force other products onto customers and/or denying access to competitors simular products. see standard oil and the legal troubles they got into before a law was even passed.

Microsoft is not a monopoly. A monopoly is, from Oxford Dictionary, a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service. Microsoft does not have exclusive control at all. They have very significant control, but anyone can and many have come out with a competing product. Not all that many people are looking for one, but they can and do exist.

Your looking at the wrong defninition. the defninition you want to view would be a legal definition wich could change as the laws governing it does. But legally speaking, Microsoft was declared a monopoly but a compitent court. So they are considerd a monopoly even though it doesn't fit the Oxford definition.

Corporations would exist, in some form or another, regardless of laws (except, possibly, in a totalitarian region where such organization was not allowed). The notion of corporations exists so that the law can be applied to such groups in a manner that fits with their situation rather than that of a person.

"The greater good" can mean a lot of things, and is not a sufficient reason to begin messing with people, whether they choose to act independently or as a group.

I'm totaly in agreement with you. Unless the people/corperations are acting are in some way (legally or not) being destructive to others. Dropping industrial waist in the towns water supply just because there is no law preventing it is only asking for some laws to be made.

So anything you don't have a direct financial interest in is perfectly okay for the government to rob?

haha.. I like the way you translated that for him. But sadley it is how most people think, If it doesn't directly effect them, they just don't care enough about it. In the one hand, microsoft has already done what it is being accused of doing so it has already effected him. In the other hand, there is no seeable direct relationship between the actions going on and his way of life so he could care less. MAny people are this way now and I have to wonder if there is something wrong with them or us?

Re:and..,.?

[MemoryDragon]

Speaking of finanical harm, web development usually is like that 50% of the time is spent to bring the application up to the requested specificatoon the rest of the 50% is spent on bending the html code to make it work on ie as well. I am not talking about the harm done by the security leaks and that Microsoft simply stopped development for six years after gaining enough market share to have a monopoly, I am talking about the financial harm done to pretty much everyone paying for web development because IE has to be supported!

I'm not so sure that this is a good thing...

[zappepcs]

Though I'm always glad to see someone take MS down a peg, I am not sure that it would be a good thing to have them successfully sued for vulnerabilities. If it works out to simply a refund for every valid registered copy of Windows, ok, since that would be a zero sum for F/OSS should it also happen to say Firefox or a version of Linux. There are so many ways to have vulnerabilities, and punitive damages might lead to things worse than the current patent system as far as hindering new technologies and features etc.

Re:Dupe!

[Durrok]

This would be an update to the case, letting us know it started and when Gates and Ballmar would have to take the stand.

We had an article about Global Warming on here years back, does that make every article about Global Warming after it a dupe?

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[NineNine]

They really need to be sat down and told to play nicely with the rest of the software world.

You're not too keen on private property, huh?

Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[ZDRuX]

Is it the browser they're going after? Or is it the OS itself? Either of which would make no sense since that would basically make every software company liable for any exploits or holes uncovered in their software that would allow people or viruses to sneak through your computer.

If they are suing because of the "bundling" problem, then isn't/hasn't this been already done (or still ongoing)?

I would say that all these people "chose" to use Windows of their own free will, and I know someone in /. will come and tell how their monopoly basically "forces" people to use their products, but in the end - the choice is up to the end-user.

As much as I don't like some of Microsoft's bussiness practices, I hope this case ammounts to nothing in the end, because it could prove to be costly to everyone, not just MS.

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[Dunbal]

Either of which would make no sense since that would basically make every software company liable for any exploits or holes

      Why does it make no sense? We doctors are liable for any mistakes we make, if you can prove negligence or incompetence. Why should it be any different for software programmers?

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[flonker]

Like any other bit of software, if you delete it, stick the CD in and reinstall it.

Go Iowa!

[bnfmsgeek]

Finally some work done on this case. Go Iowa!!! Sorry, but being an Iowan I've just found it so excited that such a large case is happenning in my own home state. I mean the case is litterly just a few hours away from here. That's just 2 TWIT podcasts away! I think I may go sit in at the trial when Gates is witness. P.S. A couple of months ago I got this email... didn't think it was real at first and was just another phishing scheme until I looked it up. Thought you might like it. http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dhgd95hq_3gkvz9n

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[BCW2]

It has nothing to do with private property and everything to do with standards recognized by every other company. M$ has always tried to modify accepted standards to thier own propriatary version which isn't compatable with the original. Remember the Java debacle? If governments started enforcing the accepted standards M$ would have to comply, imagine the hit in the wallet if the U. S. government refused to by/license any M$ products until they were compliant? Of course M$ claims what they are doing is inovation which is a crock and most programmers know it. If there were any lawmakers in any country that were geeks this could be fixed quickly, so it might happen in the next 20 years if we are lucky.

Re:Damages

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I check my email, I am flooded with spam from compromised Windows zombies

That wouldnt' exist had the underlying protocols have been secure in the first place. Windows stands on the shoulders of some real giants when it comes to flooding the world with insecure software. Bind? SMTP? POP? IRC? NNTP? The list goes on and on.

Quit pretending to be so outraged that insecure software began with Windows.

The Oxford dictionary is not a judge.

[jotaeleemeese]

I am sick and tired of people *still* ejaculating such nonsense.

For them it is like the court case that found MS guilty of abusing its monolopic position in the PC OS market never happened.

If you are a MS shrill at least start from a stand that recognizes reality, and not a version you dream about but which is patently false.

Re:The Oxford dictionary is not a judge.

[Mateo_LeFou]

"For them it is like the court case that found MS guilty of abusing its monolopic position in the PC OS market never happened."

That may be because the 2001 settlement took all of the teeth out of the remedy, so MS may as well have been acquitted.

Re:Alright! Car anology time!

[aussie_a]

They can't easily go to other restaurants if the one of them has a monopoly.

Re: Hidden Cost approach promising

[TaoPhoenix]

Mod previous post up! (I have mod points, but they vanished somewhere, maybe because I started replying instead of moderating.) P.S. in response to a post elsewhere, in the context of court cases in general, this is still a "moderately new issue" (only 8 years old), and the additional time has been passively put to use to review continued developments in the market.

Can we develop this chain of logic a little? (To the tune of House that Bill Built.)

1. MS bundles a browser which cannot be safely removed.
2. MS uses non-standard specs in the browser which cannot be safely removed.
3. Developers (Developers, Developers, Developers) must spend irreplaceable labor to comply with non-standard specs in the browser which cannot be safely removed.
4. Gaps emerge because of the incomplete documentation provded to the Developers spending irreplaceable labor to comply with non-standard specs in the browser which cannot be safely removed.
5. NastyWare invades between the gaps which emerged because of the incomplete documentation provded to the Developers spending irreplaceable labor to comply with non-standard specs in the browser which cannot be safely removed.
6. Anti-Nastyware companies make money selling software which purports to block the NastyWare that invaded between the gaps which emerged because of the incomplete documentation provded to the Developers spending irreplaceable labor to comply with non-standard specs in the browser which cannot be safely removed.
7. Microsoft is forced by pressure to back down from bundling ( ! ) integrated versions of protection suites which have specific features designed to block the Anti-Nastyware companies make money selling software which purports to block the NastyWare that invaded between the gaps which emerged because of the incomplete documentation provded to the Developers spending irreplaceable labor to comply with non-standard specs in the browser which cannot be safely removed.

Conclusion? Lost market efficiency for the masses, profits for the few, with litigation and regulation for all.