Slashdot Mirror
States Seek More Oversight of Microsoft
taoman1 writes "A group of states led by California said in a court filing Thursday that ending oversight of Microsoft's business practices in November would not allow enough time to consider the antitrust implications of Windows Vista. The states want oversight extended at least through early next year. 'The justice department said in its report that while Microsoft's operating system market share hasn't dropped because of the consent decree, "it would misapprehend the purpose of the Final Judgments to rely on these facts to argue that the Final Judgments have been ineffective. Microsoft was never found to have acquired or increased its monopoly market share unlawfully." In its report, Microsoft directly countered California's claims and said, the "Final Judgments were never designed to reduce Microsoft's share in any putative market."'"
I'm all for making the playing field even and all, but federal/state oversight of the operating system is a bad idea. Is it just MS you want to oversite, or is it the computer OS so you can start regulating what people use, or charging taxes because regulation doesn't come free.
Just seems like a big Pandora's box of things would be opened up.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
It looks like M$ didn't grease the Governator's palm thoroughly enough...
It seems they *did* do a thorough job on the DOJ and congress, though.
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
"The justice department said in its report that while Microsoft's operating system market share hasn't dropped because of the consent decree,"
No, but it might drop because Vista has been the best advertizing that OS X and Linux could ask for.
Because of a seemingly "pro-microsoft" stance this may show, but why are people and the government so up in arms about the monopoly that Microsoft has when absolutely NOTHING is being done about broadband ISPs, phone companies, oil companies (well we all know the answer to that one) and the RIAA/MPAA?
Living With a Nerd
The OS market "wants" a near monopoly. It's very good for a lot of reasons.
The advantages are more toward business IT and developers, and less toward home-users....but the former are the ones who drive the market.
There is one main thing that maintains microsoft's illegal monopoly: interoperability.
If the settlement had said "You (M$) must make your file formats and server protocols (exchange) available", there would be a whole lot more folks not needing to buy MS products because there would be other viable* alternatives.
* Yes, I know about (and use) OpenOffice, Evolution, etc
- Roach
It's not bundling software, it's not embrace and extend, that gets Microsoft into hot water. That's all authoring of software, and rivals all bundle, and all would embrace and extend if they could.
It's when Microsoft calls up hardware vendors such as Dell and tells them that they will have their Windows license revoked if they sell another OS, that's where you need the Feds to step in. At that point, Microsoft is not investing to add features, but is really working to the detrminent of consumers.
That Microsoft engages in such behavior is already proven. During the OS/2 vs Windows days, Microsoft threatened IBM with license termination if they continued to promote and develop OS/2. IBM withdrew. During the Netscape wars, Microsoft strong armed vendors to bundle the inferior IE2.0 with Windows 95, which confused the market long enough to deny Netscape needed funding for a future release, AND, bought Microsoft time to make an IE 4.0 which really was a better product. In the former case, Microsoft was engaging in restraint of trade, and in the second case, they were tying, both of which are illegal under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
The only thing that saved them in the USA is that what constitutes tying in the software business is entirely up in the air. In general, the government under any modern administration wants to give businesses as free as a hand as possible to arrange their product offerings. In Europe, however, this is not nearly so much the case, and geopolitical concerns play as well. The EU is something of an economic rival to the USA, and thus they have absolutely no problem slamming Microsoft in any number of ways, and they have.
This is my sig.
Rather than saddling Microsoft with some sort of corporate herpes, they should make it easier (or possible) to consider non-Microsoft operating systems for federal and state contracts. They could also mandate that all state and federal business be done using open file formats and open protocols. That would go a long way toward encouraging alternatives right there.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
They haven't abused anything. They're a business, barring fraud, assault, corruption of government officials they haven't done shit wrong under the decree or in fact even before it. I know the old argument the socialist scum in "true capitalist" clothing will use, the free market doesn't work right without some rules. And of course, that's a load of shit but they seem so intelligent and reasonable when they say it.
The fact is that the free market only needs to be open to scrutiny and regulated, not controlled. The only reasonable use for antitrust law is against open collusion between multiple companies and against companies with government granted monopolies over physically limited resources. This whole witch hunt against Microsoft has been silly, and nobody but MS's competitors (who Antitrust is not designed to protect - it's for consumers) and you bunch of filthy nerds has any problem with MS.
The OS market "wants" a near monopoly.
Nonsense. It wants a standard (for portability), that doesn't have to be provided by a monopoly. In fact there already is a standard for operating systems, ISO/IEC 9945, and most IT vendors support it (or something very close).
Microsoft (and some uninformed natterers not clear on the point) call their products "standard", but they're confusing that term with "ubiquitous". Heck, given that there are so many not very compatible versions of Microsofts own products, they can hardly be considered standard. (Is "standard Windows" Vista or XP or ???)
-- Alastair