Slashdot Mirror
States and DoJ Divided On Microsoft Antitrust Success
Rob writes "Computer Business Review is reporting that the US Department of Justice and five States
have declared themselves satisfied with the antitrust enforcement efforts taken against
Microsoft despite a further seven States maintaining they have had 'little or no
discernible impact in the marketplace.' While the US DoJ and five States — New York,
Louisiana, Maryland, Ohio, and Wisconsin (The New York Group) — reported that the final
judgments have succeeded in increasing competition to the benefit of consumers, seven
States making up the California
Group are not convinced."
Are you more able today to buy a computer without a Microsoft OS than you were 4 years ago?
Well, now we know which states Microsoft has the most paid lobbyists in.
Seriously, I don't see how the antitrust suit has had much bearing on Microsoft's behavior. They continue to act like a monopolist. Prices for Microsoft operating systems have actually gone UP, not down (despite prices for virtually everything else in their industry dropping) and their market share hasn't changed significantly in anyway -- when it has changed, it's been due to superior and/or cheaper products, such as all-in-one file servers with embedded OS, Linux, or improvements in Apple's Mac OS X.
My blog
Oddly enough I was talking to some Microsoft folks yesterday and we talked about the old days and the new days. And the Microsoft of 1995 is not the Microsoft of 2007. Yes they still do certain things, but many things have changed. Microsoft is different company these days, and I think it is because they had their hands slapped.
For those that say, nothing has changed, well then you don't remember what Microsoft was like in 1994! Back then Microsoft was rabid and not a company you wanted in your cross-sights. Now most people don't care about having Microsoft in their cross-sights.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
For Microsoft it's just a business decision. If the fines for not complying are smaller than the loss they would face by complying, then they won't change anything and just pay the fine. This has happened in Europe, where they had to pay hundreds of million of dollars and elsewhere.
This is just another example how much power they wield and how _corrupt_ some states in the US (and ofc elsewhere) are.
The nature of our current government makes a mockery of the FTC and anti-trust regulations. How can we reasonably expect anti-trust regulation from a federal government which is almost entirely composed of corporate henchmen?
Caveat Utilitor
Microsoft's continued abuse of its monopoly for operating systems is clearly apparent in its failure to implement web standards in IE.
Smaller browser vendors with vastly less funding have made giant strides in their implementations of CSS, SVG, mathml and DOM. Microsoft has done as little as possible to implement those standards, but somehow has found the resources and the rationalization to implement SilVerliGht, which is a stolen, bastardized clone of SVG.
Unlike 10 years ago, the world has moved past its reliance on Microsoft to embrace other vendors products willingly. No wonder IE's market share continues to fall precipitously.
Really the Department of Justice deliberately bungled the law suit, and now they have no choice but to claim it's a success till the bitter end. The last thing they want is yet another investigation into official mismanagement and White House interference in a anti-trust case. Immediately after Bush was elected they pulled all senior DoJ staff off of the case and left only a few inexperienced lawyers (from that Bible School they're so fond of hiring from) on the case.
They had Microsoft up against a wall, and then suddenly they were best buddies with Microsoft and nothing had ever really been wrong in the first place. It was sickening and another black eye for the United States, but if at any point the DoJ admits that it's unsastisfied with the results, it opens up an old can worms for the house or the senate to investigate.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
1. Microsoft has dumped its turd onto the ISO.
.NET integration draws more managed client-side development. That's probably 6-10 years from now, but it'll be a problem when Microsoft's free blub supplants Sun's free blub. Microsoft is much more effective at exploiting its resources than the crazy train that is Sun.
2. Microsoft will be dumping a turd on Adobe.
3. Microsoft has killed off more of the tools market for its platform with freebies.
4. Vista is a buggy, expensive POS. It will become the OS of 90% of personal computers within five years anyway.
5. Microsoft has made vague threats about the ownership of Linux. Let's not forget that Microsoft funded SCO's little foray under the watch of this DoJ.
6. Microsoft's biggest threat is from patent trolls, not legitimate competition.
7. Microsoft is still rumbling about leasing you your software. You haven't truly complained until Microsoft has become a utility monopoly for the entire country.
The settlement didn't really accomplish anything. Netscape was for all intents and purposes destroyed by the dumping of IE, and that was never remedied. Now it's basically a portal for a bad Digg clone. Mozilla was only salvaged through charitable donations of money and work.
Sun has seen more of a pinch from Java++. It will continue to see more as Vista's
If it hadn't been for the iPod, Apple would be a zombie. Be is gone. Linux only competes as meekly as it does because it's given away. Don't tell me this isn't a dangerous power distribution.
On the other hand these States probably just want more freebies from Microsoft, and don't plan/expect any continued scrutiny to actually change the playing field for competing with Microsoft. California getting some more free licenses to Microsoft software isn't going to do anything. Let's face it, the antitrust enforcement in this country is a joke. They'd ok a merger between Microsoft and AT&T tomorrow.
Who do you turn to when the courts and states themselves are playing corporate favoritism? Can you sue the state, or is it time to bring out the soap box/ballot box/ammo box?
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
I live in Ohio and I can say this state became a cesspool of corruption with the majority of the corruption being on the Republican side thanks to Governor Taft. Games were played with the 2000 census to make it seem that Columbus is the largest city in the state. They simply absorbed all the little towns around them and then got a lot of federal finding re-channeled away from Cleveland to Columbus. At this point Cleveland is nearly dead and Columbus has... a Microsoft business center. I wonder how much bearing that has on things since Columbus is also the state capital. They attracted a lot more business simply because they got more federal funding to expand what they offer (which is little compared to Cleveland when you're talking about the arts and culture). If Cleveland was still considered the biggest city in Ohio (or if we played the same game and consolidated all of Cuyahoga county to become THE largest city in Ohio) there would be a decidedly left turn in Ohio politics since most of us up here are liberals. That would mean that business would take more a backseat to public interest. After all business are here to serve and not control.
Whenever I read a story about MS I'd always feel something change within me. It was a sort of nervous tremor, a rush of energy over me. However, it would be gone as quickly as it came. Normally, I don't think too much about it. But after reading this list, I was thrown into a blind fury, consumed by unadulterated rage the likes of which I have never unleashed from my mother's basement. Raising my fist high, I stabbed in the general direction of Redmond with a force of approximately 4.76lb of sheer brutality. The resulting shockwave from my outburst surely disrupted the evil Redmond campus, if but momentarily.
Brothers, we must join together. Let us never forget the list of endless sins that this company has perpetuated. Egregious, dastardly sins that would make their grandmothers cry when they heard them. We must continue to fight this war! Our main offensive shall be the posting of vehement rants on community-driven websites, such as Slashdot. The sheer number of these pointed essays shall bowl over our enemies in no time! This is a battle of numbers: do not feel the need to invoke mighty weapons of logic at every turn! And, also remember, your own stories of woe relating to Microsoft are worth as much, if not more, than logical arguments.
I trust you will not let me down.
I think extreme situations require extreme measures, and it is clear that the anti-trust control measures are not only ineffective; they are actually a suit of armour for Microsoft to further abuse their monopoly power. The world has close to a billion PCs now; that's a huge number given there's about 6 billion people. If the US will not act, and the EU will not be allowed to act... bodies like the ECMA and ISO will be subverted; then someone else has to take up the fight to bring justice.
More worrying than the monopoly is the fact that the PC burns much more power and is inferior as a platform compared to even small devices like cellphones, game devices and appliances. The failure of the OOXML fast track process shows that there is still hope, if only the whole world can act in concert. I suggest some measures to bring speedy correction in the PC industry:
1. Any component of the PC that does not conform to published, patent unencumbered standards must be taxed - this includes processors, video cards, winprinters, winmodems, audio devices, DRM chips, TCPA engines, kernels, hypervisors, operating systems, word processors etc. etc. The tax must be high enough to deter unscrupulous mfrs. to dictate their 'default' standards and abuse their positions to the detriment of the platform, the consumer and the market. A 30% tax should be levied for starters, and the corpus must be used to fund devleopment of 'free' alternatives in each segment above.
The recent network 'penalty' while playing system sounds in Vista is a case in point. Could Microsoft have got away with a 'published' audio device and driver architecture under a transparent benchmarking system? Who will compensate for the 'defective' protected media path architecture? Will the h/w mfrs freely replace their buggy cards with better performing ones? Countries other than the US must force them to do so.
2. Patents must be abolished in the PC industry - it is clear from the unholy MS - Novell alliance that even the biggest firms cannot enforce their patents, and they actually hinder innovation; and encourage cartels. The EU and several other nations do not still recognise s/w patents; the 15 year lifespan for a patent is absurd even in the h/w industry where monopolies can be built up in undre 5 years.
3. International standards need to be evolved that govern the use of the internet - it is too big and valuable to be subject to the machincations of a toothless US commerce agency. Companies that actively or passively contribute to the abuse of the internet must be punished and / or taxed. For instance, is a particular OS is the platform of choice for botnets, then the mfr. of the OS must fix the problem within a reasonable timeframe, or else open the source so the community will fix it themselves.
The proceedings in some of the standards bodies on the OOXML vote shows that they can govern the IT industry better than the anti-trust agencies. I tihnk they must be allowed to have a say, now that the US bodies have failed.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
1) Microsoft has kept on supplying Windows to computer makers who offer a non-Windows option.
2) Microsoft has allowed hardware vendors to live who offer non-Windows drivers for their hardware.
3) Microsoft has not forced hardware and software vendors to exclusively use Microsoft protocols and standards.
4) Microsoft lets the user install software on their Windows sytems such as Open Office and Firefox that competes with Microsoft software.
5) Windows users don't have to pay a 'per minute' charge to use their system, just a one-time license fee when they buy it.
Of course, once the antitrust judicial oversight ends, so will all of this kindness by Microsoft. On day 1, Microsoft will pick up the phone to Intel and tell them to implement some Windows-only stuff on the next gen of 'Core Quadro' processors that will make their use by Apple...how shall we say it?...challenging.
Is it possible that the reason that Dell, HP, and Lenovo are now offering desktop PCs with Linux has little to do with Linux and it's merits and more to do with the fact that the antitrust enforcement against Microsoft is about to expire and is up for review/renewal. OEM bullying to lockout competitors was one of the biggest complaints against Microsoft. But since the big 3 desktop PC vendors are selling Linux, the measures slapped on Microsoft have obviously worked and are no longer needed.
What annoys me is how most organizations focus on the inclusion of Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer in Windows despite the bigger antitrust violations that Microsoft has been commiting for years. Probably the worst antitrust offense Microsoft is commiting lies in its OEM license terms for Windows. Companies large and small rely on the huge discount that comes from selling OEM versions of Windows on their hardware, but the license terms prevent those vendors from selling PC's with no operating systems installed on them as well as PC's set up to dual boot Windows along with any other operating system. Yes, I know that FreeDOS has been used to work around the former of those problems, but regardless of the effectiveness of these tactics is the fact that Microsoft attempts to use such anti-competitive practices and the fact that they are always overlooked.
And on a slightly different note, could the fact that Windows is the only operating system that doesn't have a boot loader with the capability to load other operating systems be considered anti-competitive? Linux has had this feature for many years and even OS X supports dual-booting Windows, but Windows simply overwrites the MBR and renders all other installed operating systems to be unbootable until a recovery disk is used to repair the boot loader.
And finally, my biggest complaint about the EU and the US DOJ is that they fined Microsoft for including WMP and IE in Windows, but they have made little to no effort to "vote with their wallets" and use other operating systems. If they really found Microsoft's tactics to be anti-competitive, they could back up their statements by at least considering the use one of the many viable alternatives to Windows. Instead, they issue a fine while continuing to use Windows (hypocrites?) and make themselves look like a bunch of greedy grab-asses out to get a piece of the Microsoft pie. EU and US DOJ: actions speak louder than cheap (relative to Microsoft) fines.
"Unlike 10 years ago, the world has moved past its reliance on Microsoft to embrace other vendors products willingly. No wonder IE's market share continues to fall precipitously."
So then you agree with the DoJ and the 5 states that the thing they did vis-a-vis Microsoft worked? Good, glad to have that settled.
All of you whiney fan-bois and grrls should take a step back and realize what it is you are admitting when you say the stupid things that you say. If the things MS makes are 'defectivebydesign', then monopoly or not, some other system will win. If MS can't innovate, can't implement standards, can't make stable systems, then some other system will win. If closed source is such a bad model, then some other system will win.
It's hard to make a case that MS should continue to be hobbled when it's "The Year of Widespread Linux Adoption".
eff you, new york!
Microsoft's monopoly is perhaps the best exemplar of the evil of antitrust.
It is the result of the US DoJ's antitrust persecution of IBM. http://www.hagley.lib.de.us/1980.htm
Think about it. Why did the mountain come to Mohamed? Why did IBM go shopping for a floppy DOS?
A floppy DOS is a weekend project for IBM. They could have made a better PC-DOS than Microsoft ever has, at a lower price for themselves and their customers.
There is only one entity that could have forced IBM to make such a stupid decision, and that was the US Government.
I am of split mind regarding antitrust prosecution of Microsoft. I admit to enjoying the schadenfreude, "he who lives by antitrust dies by antitrust," yet I understand at some point the madness of antitrust must stop.
Because lawyers are lousy system architects! They are rarely learned in discrete logic; they are only taught pretzel logic.
.... they are hoisting the "Mission Accomplished" banner as we speak (post).
Have gnu, will travel.
Microsoft has locked out Linux from Retailer Shelves
Yes, the proliferation of broadband and WiFi hot spots that allow laptop users to download a CD-ROM in 30 minutes has made it easier for end users to install non-microsoft applications, by Microsoft still maintains total monopoly control over the OEM and retailer channel. When I shop at K-Mart, I can look at the games available for Sony PlayStation, Nintendo, and even X-Box, even test drive them, even see if the kids will like them. When I buy software for a PC there is NO facility to take a "Test Drive". On the other hand, Microsoft makes sure that their middleware, "applets" (bundled applications), and other anticompetitive products are fully loaded and ready to demonstrate.
Applications Barrier to Entry Still Exists
Remember, the whole premise of the Antitrust case was that Microsoft had created an "Applications Barrier to Entry", preventing the widespread marketing and adoption of applications capable of running on competitive platforms. Furthermore, it was ruled that Microsoft was illegally using it's existing monopoly to exclude competitors from the marketplace (IE Distribution Channels).
Monopoly or Collusion
There are two possibilities. One is that Microsoft has been arm-twisting and coercing the OEMs, through fraud (vaporware) extortion (buy more than you need or we will give you NO licenses), blackmail (if you sell machines without Windows, we will claim you are promoting piracy), and sabotage (want a patch that permanently damages your hardware - similar to the way we fried IBM's Cyrix chips with Windows NT 4.0 service pack 2?).
The other possibility is that the OEMs were willing co-conspirators in a collusion scheme designed to exclude competitors like Novell, Sun, and Apple from the marketplace. Could it be that the OEMs openly conspired to exclude Linux distributors, and other distributors of PC compatible operating systems such as Linux, Solaris, BSD, and OS/X from the marketplace, by refusing to allow them into the OEM distribution channel?
The evidence and actions of the OEMs indicate quite the opposite. Hewlett Packard designed all of their AMD-64 based laptop and desktop PCs to be fully compatible with Linux. They even announced that they would offer their PCs with Linux - for about 3 days. Then what happened? Did Microsoft "crack down"? Dell and Toshiba have also attempted similar "Linux PC" announcements - only to withdraw the offerings within 3-4 days. IBM's Sam Palmisano had publicly announced that IBM would be converting to Linux and OSS by the end of 2007. It seems that Microsoft made it so unpleasant for IBM, that IBM scuttled the PC division, and sold it to Lenovo. The only Desktops they still sell - are available with Linux as well as Windows.
Yet with all these attempts to announce and promote Linux based PCs, not a single Linux PC has made it to the shelves of a major national or international retail franchise. Wal-Mart has offered Linux PCs for almost 10 years now, but only on their web site, and only as pretty much a seasonal offering.
Desktop Virtualization has been thwarted
The technology is available to enable Linux and Windows to run on the same machine. Dual-boot, Desktop Virtualization, and multicore processors have made it possible to run both Linux and Windows on the same desk
IBM Certified IT Architect http://www.open4success.org
How much could California really care about a Microsoft monopoly if they force all state employees to use Windows? So much for the theory about the state going after MS because Apple's headquarters are in Cupertino.
No discernible impact on the market place. So why aren't they satisfied? Wasn't that the point?
The feds are sorry they ever bothered Microsoft.
The states are sorry they stopped.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Just because I get tired of all the constant anti-microsoft rhetoric doesn't make me a shill. Yes, if you went back further than the last 2 dozen comments, you'd see a lot more.
Whether or not Microsoft "stacked" the ISO deck doesn't have any real bearance on anti-trust either. Having OOXML as an ISO standard is not anti-competitive. It may break other rules or laws, but anti-competitive? How? It's not like OOXML being an ISO standard forces anyone to use office.
Also, no. The Findings of fact do not declare Microsoft to be an illegal monopoly. Perhaps you shoul read it. It actually declares Microsoft to be a *LEGAL* one, ie having gained their monopoly legally. Further, Findings of fact don't draw any conclusions.
Now, the Conclusions of Law claimed that Microsoft had abused it's monopoly power illegally, but that doesn't mean Microsoft is an illegal monopoly. So no, it's not "well established" that they're an illegal monopoly, since that is not the case. The opposite is, in fact, the case.
It's not splitting hairs either. Do you consider it splitting hairs to say that someone who committed civil copyright infringement is guilty of felonious theft? It's a *HUGE* difference between civil proceedings and criminal ones. It's a *HUGE* difference betwee claiming someone is a felon, and someone merely being sued in a civil lawsuit.
Or are you going to start calling all those people sued by the MPAA and RIAA felons because they agreed to a settlement?
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
"The fact that middleware and operating system competition is taking place today is encouraging and an indication that the final judgments are enabling the competition that they are designed to protect," noted the DoJ and New York Group in their filing."
Aside from backend server OS's and middleware on systems that are already free of Window, where is the competition? I haven't seen much...