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.
"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
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
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?