DoJ Finds Microsoft Antitrust Compliance 'On Track'

eldavojohn writes "Despite demand for more oversight from the states, the Department of Justice has found that Microsoft's antitrust compliance plan is right on track. These specific investigations centered around Vista's compliance with Google's concerns surrounding search tools for the desktop. From the article: 'Preliminary testing shows the new version, which will let Vista users set a competing search program as their default and see it in the Windows Start menu, works as expected. The changes will be available in Service Pack 1, a package of upgrades and fixes expected in the first quarter of 2008, the department said. The department also said in its report that it is looking into differences between original technical documentation and rewritten versions from Microsoft, and that it is testing fixes Microsoft made to some software.'"

Comments

Of course it does...

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anybody expected something different?

Quote from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/artic les/2007/06/10/microsoft_finds_defender_in_us_just ice_department/

The official, Assistant Attorney General Thomas O. Barnett, had until 2004 been a top antitrust partner at Covington & Burlington, the law firm that has represented Microsoft in several antitrust disputes.

Re:Of course it does...

[kripkenstein]

Has anybody expected something different?

Sadly, no. And it isn't hard to see why this is so: What does the US have left, in the area of actual productive industry? Sure, there are successful investment firms, etc., but most actual manufacturing has long been lost to other nations. There are basically two fields that are actually producing goods, Big Content (symbolized by the RIAA/MPAA) and software, and by software I mean basically Microsoft.

The US government isn't just corrupt and pandering to these two groups for no reason. Yes, they are corrupt, but they aren't stupid - IMO they see supporting these groups as vital to the future of the nation. And that is why you get things like the DMCA and a lack of antitrust litigation against Microsoft. If you thought these two things weren't connected, then I think you were wrong.

If/when piracy is stamped out in Asia, then Microsoft and Big Content will get around $100 per computer sold there, and $10 per movie watched (rough figures, but you get the idea). The crucial issue is that (1) the US has an advantage in manufacturing both types of content (by history and monopoly), and (2) in both cases there is no need to 'scale up' your actual physical manufacturing processes, since there are none (although support staff, perhaps) - you can adapt to 1,000,000 new Chinese users of Microsoft software by basically doing nothing. Copying them Windows is no problem.

As a Linux user this issue concerns me, since it indicates that in the US we basically have no hope of winning out against Microsoft; the government will step in (or not step in) to assure their continued domination. The hope, if any, lies overseas.

Antitrust

[laederkeps]

Is it just me, or are we treating Microsoft differently from all the other mega corporations?

I never quite understood the rationale behind, for example, trying to force Windows Media Player out of the Windows XP bundle. Really, Microsoft sells an OS and its customers want a somewhat functional system at that. These days, a PC isn't really complete until it can play some digital media and thus MS includes a media player with its OS.
I don't use windows unless I really have to. I don't use Windows media player unless I happen to find myself on a deserted island in the body of an evil zombie pirate with two matching pink socks.
I also don't encourage others to use Windows Media Player or Internet Explorer or any of the other crud that MS ships with their (Others, that is) new computers.

Still, isn't this a bit out of line? Why on earth should they not be allowed to supply a search function in their own OS (And as far as I understand, they still claim that Windows => IE?)
Why is anyone at all listening to the people who complain about Opera/VLC/whatever not getting a fair chance on the windows market?

I say "no" to Microsoft products, but I don't think we should force anyone to come to the same conclusion like this.

Re:Antitrust

[penix1]

I think what you meant to say is that you don't understand the concept of monopoly or antitrust or why consumers should need or get relief from same.

I think the OP is confusing a monopoly, something that is totally legal and is actually something that true open markets lead to, with antitrust (abuse of that monopoly) which is something that is illegal. To add to the confusion, there are several forms of monopoly that are protected in law (copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret). It is little wonder that such a complex concept is beyond the modern citizen especially since the very things that are being challenged are also protected by those laws.

Microsoft has been convicted of abuse of its monopoly position. The settlement would have worked somewhat had not only the DOJ but the court's oversight body been doing their job. The fact that Vista was allowed to be released without the "features" they are just now putting into SP1 is proof that there is no oversight of the settlement. The rigging of votes in standards bodies and lack of released documentation for their APIs and document formats is another.

Many here are speculating that the EU will be tougher, and that may be the case, but in the end it will have no effect on Microsoft's abuse of monopoly anywhere else outside of Europe. Microsoft will ship a neutered version of their product to Europe and point fingers at the EU saying, "Blame them for the lack of features (or a broken OS more likely since media DRM is so tied into Vista) that others around the globe have. Can't play that DVD you just bought? Blame the EU Commission not us!"

Microsoft is walking a fine line (often crossing it with impunity it seems) between functionality and abuse of monopoly. Any new technology out of Redmond becomes suspect since they always seem to be pushing that technology onto vendors via their OS dominance. I don't think Microsoft will ever get out from under the cloud they have cast over themselves of being "evil". I also don't see things changing no matter who gains the White House hot seat simply because of the political clout such a large employer has.

The other thing that is in relation to what I just said is Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't in many cases especially where security is concerned. Companies like Symantic and McAffee and the like have built a large business on the insecurities inherent in the Microsoft platform. When Microsoft announced Windows Defender these companies screamed "antitrust!" The same is happening for any features Microsoft adds be it media, search indexing, security, etc. These are things that Microsoft customers are screaming for but any attempt by Microsoft to address them gets a call for antitrust because they will always step on some provider's toes no matter what they do. Consider this, if Microsoft were to include into their OS all the things that a Linux distro does, the calls for antitrust would be so great you could hear it on Pluto without the need for a radio.

Re:Antitrust

[$pace6host]

I thought the problem was that Microsoft was already judged to be a monopoly, and to have abused their monopoly. See, if Microsoft has a monopoly on the O/S, and they use that O/S monopoly to harm competitors in other markets (office software, search software, media players, etc.) then the government is supposed to step in and protect competition to protect the consumers. How do they abuse their monopoly? Well, I assume you will agree that their O/S is essentially the only O/S shipped by the vast majority of vendors. The first link in Google for "O/S marketshare" would indicate that various flavors of Windows have over 90%. Examples?

• A company comes along and decides to sell browsers, great! Then Microsoft makes their own browser, and "bundles" it with the O/S (or makes it "an integral part" of the O/S). No one buys the competitor, because they get one "free" with the O/S; additionally, any non-standard "features" of Microsoft's browser become the instant standard. Competition harmed.
• Someone decides to make search software, great! Microsoft makes their own, and bundles it with the O/S. No one downloads or uses the competitor, because they get one "free" with the O/S. Competition harmed.
• Someone makes a good media player, great! Microsoft decides to "bundle" one with the O/S - no one buys the competitor and no one makes files in the competitor's format, because consumers get one "free" with the O/S. Why make content in a format no one will ever use? Competition harmed.

Do you see how having a monopoly on the O/S can allow you to throw around an instant 90% marketshare? Name any application. Now, imagine what happens to vendors of that type of application when Microsoft "bundles" an app of that type with the O/S. Remember, no one has the choice to buy the O/S without the bundling. It's not like Microsoft is saying "Hey, we make a great widget, too, buy ours!" They're saying "hidden in the cost of the O/S you're going to get anyway will be a widget -- why buy our competitors?" And these things AREN'T integral to the O/S. They're things that can be, should be, and originally were separate products. Microsoft didn't invent the browser, the media player, or the search feature. The O/S existed without all of them before. Now, did they do this because everyone was having problems finding these applications before Microsoft nobly put their own versions in a bundle with the O/S? Or, was it that Microsoft wanted to force the adoption of their product and extend their monopoly into other markets?

Additionally, suppose Microsoft also publishes public APIs for their O/S, to allow vendors to sell products that run on it, but they intentionally leave out critical information that would allow those vendors to compete with Microsoft's own offerings.

These types of practices trample competitors, who may have superior products that no one will ever discover because a monopoly has been abused.

Here's a analogy that is probably flawed, but which I hope illustrates the problem. Imagine that 90% of all TVs are made by MegaTV. An engineer sitting around at home gets a great idea - we can sell movies on little plastic disks that people can watch on their TVs! He starts a company (DiskCo) that sells movie disk players you can hook up to your MegaTV. A few other companies think this is a great opportunity, and they get into the disk player market, playing movies in the DiskCo format. Seeing this, MegaTV makes their own disk player and bundles it into every new TV sold, so 90% of all TVs sold now have a MegaTV disk player in them. Sure, all the new TVs are slightly more expensive, but the player is "free!" And, the MegaTV player has a quirk in it, it handles something slightly different. Movie studios have to choose -- do they put out content that works on DiskCo's player? Or on the one that 90% of all new TV owners will have? Hmmm... DiskCo and the other small vendors go out of business, no one wants their players and their players don't handle the "non standard" (but most prevalent) content "prope

Re:Antitrust

[kimvette]

"Give me a big enough lever and I can move the earth." Owning the OS is a pretty big lever. If you've been paying attention the last 10 years you've seen MS using their monopoly to destroy, stifle, and expand.

In addition to that, since the antitrust procedings started, the list price for Windows has quadrupled. THAT is clearly illegal as it is abusing their monopoly status to force price increases. Microsoft is a coercive monopoly and the DoJ and FTC are doing NOTHING about it.

Microsoft has a coercive monopoly because they are abusing their position to increase prices, and have been taking technical measures dating all the way back to Windows 3.x to break interoperability with third-party products. In addition, they push third parties in other industry segments out of business by bundling half-baked solutions with the OS (MSIE 1.x and 2.x, anyone?) in effort to take over their other markets where they see others' enjoying even a mediocum of success. Lastly, they held their prices artificially low (especially on MSDN, it has been alleged by some that Microsoft set up shell companies to get developers hooked on MSDN and shut them down when popularity hit critical mass at which point the new equivalent of an MSDN Universal subscription (the highest end non-volume-licensed subscription) which once was obtainable for $800 to $1200 is not unobtainable for less than $9,000, pushing out the ability of independent newcomers from entering the market. You may claim that $9,000 is not much for a company, but in reality for software it's insane, especially when you consider that many of today's megacorps were started in the '70s, '80s, and '90s by one or two people hacking some code on a new interesting program idea. $9,000 to a developer hacking a prototype on his or her own time at home -- it is a LOT of money.

Joke

[markdavis]

Personally, I think the whole anti-trust thing has been a joke. It has had no teeth and no real effect. Every week we read about yet something else MS has done to reinforce its monopoly status... just this week, the whole "let's pay off companies to corrupt the ISO standards process on the interestingly named, Office Open XML". The entire "let's use tons of meaningless patents to scare off competition". The political shenanigans to kill ODT in several states and even countries. The "deal" with Novell to chill other distros. The bankrolling of SCO vs. Linux. The ever-popular "let's spew continous FUD about Linux rather than tout or own good points". The list goes on and on.

Microsoft has been doing and continues to do exactly what monopolies are not supposed to be allowed to do: use its market position and control to actively suppress competition and innovation. The Justice Department is 1) inept, 2) blind, and/or 3) 0wned.

Re:Which DOJ?

[EriDay]

The one that doesn't have a #1, #2, or #3 person; the one where everyone who was not political hack was fired. To recap, the one with a 4th string political hack in charge of a bunch of fellow political hacks. The former #3 went to a tier 4 law school. For details see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaIOX4zCRLg

On track

[Dunbal]

Somebody just got themselves some free laptops!

Agriculture

[westlake]

I would be (literally!) very happy to be proven wrong. Do you have an example of another productive, exporting industry in the US?

Agriculture.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 31, 2007 - Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns today announced a record $79 billion forecast in FY 2007 agricultural exports. For fiscal year 2008, USDA forecasts exports to reach $83.5 billion with growth and new sales across all major agricultural product groups. U.S. Agricultural Exports Expected To Reach Record Levels

Re:Agriculture

[kimvette]

$79 billion annually? Is that a WHOLE $79 billion? Well, thank God, then. I guess we have nothing to worry about then.

Wait a second, that's wrong! Our trade deficit is roughly $60 billion per month. In the face of that, $79 billion is a drop in the bucket. We're hemorrhaging money, jobs, and manufacturing capacity and if we don't end it and encourage domestic manufacturing, we'll be totally fucked soon, ESPECIALLY if WWIII breaks out (that's where we're heading with our current foreign policies) and need to manufacture artillery and vehicles on short order.

Check this out for monthly trade deficit tallies: http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/ticker_home.a sp

For a US trade deficit graph underscoring the seriousness of the matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_surplus#United_ States_trade_deficit