Slashdot Mirror
EU Launches Yet Another Antitrust Probe Into Microsoft
Connor writes "The EU has announced a new wide-ranging antitrust probe into Microsoft's practices of bundling software with Windows, as well as whether its products interoperate sufficiently with competitors' products. 'The first area of investigation will concern interoperability of some of Microsoft's products, including Office 2007, the .NET Framework, and some of Microsoft's server products.' The other prong of the investigation is a response to Opera's antitrust complaint, but will look at other products, too. 'The Commission will also look at desktop search and Windows Live as well in addition to other products. The EC says that its investigation will "focus on allegations that a range of products have been unlawfully tied to sales of Microsoft's dominant operating system."'"
Can anybody tell me what MS has actually been forced to do as a result of anti-trust lawsuits? I don't mean what they have been told to do but rather what they were forced to follow through with. IIRC, they still haven't paid a hefty fine imposed by the EU a long time ago.
I normally am happy when bad things happen to Microsoft, but I was Antitrust-Probed by aliens once, and I know how it can feel.
Look at the way their iPod and iTunes don't work as fully with competitors products as their own!!!11
China protects its own by keeping its currency undervalued.
Europe protects its own through litigation and trade restricting laws.
The Unites States rapes its own through outsourcing, overspending and reducing taxes on the rich.
Which one do you think will be a world power in 50 years?
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Microsoft has a bit of a juggling act to do. On one hand, they're bound to make the maximum possible profit for their investors as a corporation. On the other side, they have to do so in a way that keeps various governments off their backs, and keeps from being -overtly- anti-competitive--because, let's face it, the maximum possible profit will be made by M$ being a monopoly.
I do rather wish, though, that it was the QC department rather than the legal department that got all the funding for these ventures; the strategy of 'sue everyone and who cares about the product' didn't seem to work too well for SCO, and with the rather notable--especially in Europe--rejection of Vista, M$ would do well to take note of the problems with their product. Legal muscle and dominance of the marketplace will take you far, but such things are no excuse for honest innovation (or, if you can't do it honestly, buying it or stealing it from someone else--anyone heard of any actual production plans for those nifty tabletop computers from a few months back yet?)
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
"Could it be that they were designed for eachother?" Yes, it could be. It could also be that they design software in a way that unlawfully or unethically discourages the use of other software. Lets see what they find out during the investigation. Microsoft is a powerful company, and as such, just like powerful politicians, they should be under constant investigation.
Don't be crazy anymore!
How long is it going to be before Bush sends US diplomats to intervene on Microsoft's behalf again?
Does anyone else think enough is enough? I'm not an expert with Opera or Windows but from what I've read Opera seems to work well with Windows (some will claim even better than IE). To me this sounds like the creators of Opera are not happy their market share isn't has high as they'd like, so they hopped on the "blame Microsoft for the world's problems" bandwagon and are hoping the Socalist leaning EU will give them some handouts.
Will the EU keep pecking away at M$ until the company is forced to break up and become a non-factor... then go after the company that takes it's place (google)?
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Yeah, but why does Oprah care?
I think people are so use to the past decade of Microsoft getting away with pretty much anything they wanted and effectively walking away from any legal or government intervention that it is hard to grasp that that is no longer the case. Microsoft is getting a lesson right now from the EU like someone who just got pulled over for a speeding ticket and speeds off and gets pulled over again. The fact that you just got pulled over a few minutes ago means absolutely nothing.
There is a certain, and strange, Microsoft fanbase that is roughly of the mindset of "Microsoft is always teh winner". They might not even like Microsoft products but somehow identify with the company as somehow being badass and that "Bill Gates will just buy his way out of this with pocketchange LOL!" type sentiments.
Tough times ahead for that crowd. Look for much crying about how life isn't fair from them.
This is just great! If we get Internet Explorer, Windows Mediaplayer, Windows shell (GUI) and few others ripped off from Operating System, we would get a great platform.
No, this dont mean that Microsoft could not sell them or develope those. Just that those users who dont need a Microsoft own webbrowser or a WMP. Can remove them. OEM manufactures can install Opera or Firefox or OTHER webbrowser instead IE and VLC or any other mediaplayer instead of WMP.
How many remembers what is definition of Operating System?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system
"An operating system (OS) is the software that manages the sharing of the resources of a computer and provides programmers with an interface used to access those resources. An operating system processes system data and user input, and responds by allocating and managing tasks and internal system resources as a service to users and programs of the system. At the foundation of all system software, an operating system performs basic tasks such as controlling and allocating memory, prioritizing system requests, controlling input and output devices, facilitating networking and managing file systems. Most operating systems come with an application that provides a user interface for managing the operating system, such as a command line interpreter or graphical user interface. The operating system forms a platform for other system software and for application software."
And what we have left if we remove all applications what dosn't remove any of these definition parts? Just pure OS.
It would be much better if a Microsoft would become as two corporation, other to build and sell basic OS and other to sell all other software like WMP, IE, Office, Games, Outlook etc etc. Together user could get windows as it is now and every one would be happy.
And those who needs just windows OS, would get Operating System and nothing more. They could install just their games to it or software what are needed and use computer happily.
Trap link - "Slashdot spammer"
i didnt know that microsoft was looking for a pizza delivery boy.
Not to mention their attempts to squeeze the life out of open formats like ODF.
Also, it shows the EU has the balls to stand up to MS and their anti competitive practices, something the US has been unable to do for a while.
My blog
I dont get this whole idea that including applications with your OS is somehow evil. There are certain things that the average user expects to be able to do with a PC out of the box. Things like browsing the internet, playing a media file, etc.
(warning car analogy ahead)
It is kind of like telling auto manufacturers that they cannot include built in AC, CD player, or any other ameneties with their cars because it kills the third party market even though these are things that consumers expect to come with their cars.
If toyota makes cars, but then decides they want to engineer their own CD players and install them as stock on all their cars, is it against sony, because people will most likely just use the stock cd player? Goodness knows there are manufacturers who make steering-wheel covers who'd be pissed if toyota sent out their cars with great steering wheel covers too.
What microsoft is doing is covering the bases. Yeah, NERO's pissed when MS new OS has burning capabilities in it, but lets face it, interfacing with hardware (a technology like DVD-RW is getting older every day) is a primary function that I'd wonder WHY the OS doesn't already do that. If I bought a computer with no web browser, I couldn't go get opera and install it. It's not like Windows comes with Office- that'd be nice. I just think it's a bunch of whiney babies. Don't like it? Buy a mac!
My guess is that the people here complaining probably already have a mac, which is why I got modded down. I like microsoft. There I said it. Don't mark me Flamebait cause I have an opinion that MAC fanboys don't share with me.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Ground beef... heheheh Chuck, roast, prime round, round eye, UP CHUCK...? If you equate their leadership to Star Trek's mad admirals, you can start corporate Mad Cow DisEase...
And if you DHCP their ass and bind an address, you'll be bound to grief on their ground beef.
(The Anti-Trust can keep steaming along. I'm pro-DIStrust of them. But, I AM happy that vista runs inside my VirtualBox-equipped PCLinuxOS2007 computer. Installed without too much of an issue, just about 45 minutes, 2 or 3 virtual reboots, and some minor tweaking (turn of UAC, need some vid drivers, need to activate the NIC or find a way to share files tween Linux and Blista...)...)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
And I will tell you exactly why I think so. Microsoft releases a retail version of Windows. Included in this retail version of Windows is Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer.
Number 1. Both of these are FREE PROGRAMS. You can download any version of IE and WMP for free directly from Microsoft (and yes, I am aware they don't retain older versions for downloading). You won't see Internet Explorer or WMP sitting on Best Buy's shelves.
Number 2. After installing windows, the first two programs I install are Media Player Classic and Firefox. Both free, legal alternatives. If someone is upset with Microsoft including those other two programs in there, don't use them. Yes, they take up a minimal amount of disk space...but if you are complaining about 50-100 MB of disk space when you can get a 1 TB drive in a 3.5" model for roughtly $250-$300, you are just looking for something to complain about.
Number 3. Those who don't know any better obviously don't care that they come included...and if they do care, they will do the research required to download and use something else.
Number 4. LINUX AND OSX!!!! It's not like Windows is the only game in town...it is perhaps for gaming, but that is not Microsoft's fault...you wouldn't try to sue Sony because your PS3 can't play an Amiga game, would you?
All I'm saying is that this is complete and utter stupidity. People that use windows don't care that they are using windows. If they care enough that they are using windows, they will look at what the other alternatives are. "But...but...but...I HAVE to use office, it's what my job uses!" That's your company's fault for using Microsoft products...no one forced them to. Just like no one has forced you to use Microsoft products.
Living With a Nerd
... Steve Jobs announces that OS/X will now include a full function CAD drafting system called iDraft. Throngs outside the Apple offices literally throw their money at Jobs.
Oh my god- a pro-microsoft argument that actually makes sense. Let's mark it troll.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
If I have this correctlty, ASP.Net is executed server side 100% of the time and returns HTML and javascript to the browser. How would this not work on every single operating system and browser out there? Am I missing something? I mean Office 2007 you have a point; but .NET?
I'm getting bored of reading about the EU's investigations into Microsoft. It's quite clearly not working.
ilovegeorgebush
But if you happen to be in the field of Computer Repair or even MS Security (I know that's an oxymoron). Microsoft can make you loads of money. Since all MS Products are buggy and virus prone, people in the these industries should be praising Microsoft for giving them a way to support themselves and their families.
I can't help but think about all the other anti-trust BS that they've been through that has changed NOTHING.
Byung-Gu gets ahold of your rear with his phallic, silver, steam-delivering alien anal probe.
He says, "See this here?... It's headed for a special place..." LOL!
He says no one has been able to stand it for more than an hour (I suppose he meant ALIENS, not humans...), but at least he lubes the thing. When it arrives on screen, it's a stunner. If you live in SF, you can borrow it from SFPL. Or, you can buy it online... Funny as hell. Crosses every imaginable film/movie genre in about 2 hours. Can't make stuff like this in the US...
http://www.kfccinema.com/reviews/horror/savethegreenplanet/savethegreenplanet.html
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10004650-save_the_green_planet/
http://www.loveasianfilm.com/reviews/savethegreenplanet.html
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Doesn't these memes directly contradict each other?
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
In the 50's, 60's and 70's IBM was repeatedly beat up on by antitrust people. The result was IBM couldn't ship a computer with an operating system pre installed. It didn't really mean that the computer wouldn't have an IBM operating system (since no one had a viable alternative available), it ment you had to buy the OS seperately. This practice continued into the era of the PC. Early IBM PCs were sold naked. This gave Microsoft the opportunity to sell MS DOS instead of the IBM labeled version of MS DOS. IBM's competitiors were able to sell computers with OS's installed but not IBM. Eventually this was changed, but not until IBM had been critically wounded in the market they created.
Microsoft may face the same future. They may be forced to sell a naked OS while their competitors will be selling an OS with lots of goodies bundled.
Is this a good thing? Who knows. Personally I think it may be a good thing.
Microsoft is a monopoly. It's been operating as one for over a decade. It's been declared one even in the monopoly-friendly US for 7 years. I hasn't changed, and is even worse globally like in the EU. Its monopoly comes from bundling across the IT product line, extending even beyond software. Until it's broken into individual OS, app, development, network, content and hardware corporations which don't make preferential deals with each other instead of with any other competitor to each other, it will operate as a market abusing monopoly. Why shouldn't it? And why should the EU put up with that, when Microsoft isn't even an EU corporation?
I just saved the EU a lot of money. Now, if they skip the probe and start barring monopolies like Microsoft at least from doing business with the EU governments, they might actually save the EU's people some money, and get some better products out of a more actually competitive environment.
--
make install -not war
Microsoft has a bit of a juggling act to do. On one hand, they're bound to make the maximum possible profit for their investors as a corporation.
Within the bounds of ethics! Microsoft is at a minimum one of the least ethical companies.
On the other side, they have to do so in a way that keeps various governments off their backs, and keeps from being -overtly- anti-competitive--because, let's face it, the maximum possible profit will be made by M$ being a monopoly.
Ummm, that's ethics as well.
This is ironic because one of my bigger gripes about Windows is that it does not bundle *enough* software. And the software/utilities they do include are generally subpar, IMO. I usually have to spend a few hours gathering all the little pieces of software that I need for Windows to be generally useful as a base. Need a PDF reader, PDF writer (print to PDF), better archive file handling, CD/DVD burning, updated drivers, telnet/ssh client that DOESN'T feel like it was coded in 1986 and never updated, etc. A lot of it has to do with XP being so damn old, of course, but even back when it was released the bundled utilities were mostly useless. OS X (and Linux to a greater degree for obvious reasons), on the other hand, comes almost completely ready for general use (minus major apps like Adobe Suite) out of the box. I hardly have to download anything to get OS X going. And then there's iLife, which I don't use.
I wonder if/when governments are going to start going after Apple. OS X is 10x "worse" than Windows when it comes to bundled software. I use "worse" lightly, of course, because I actually want bundled software.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
This is a ridiculous statement. Cars used to be separate from air conditioning too; people used to have to add a window evaporative cooler to their coupe back in the forties. Just try convincing the majority of people that cars don't need air conditioning! (If you go back even farther, cars used to regularly come without heaters, too, so we can do this all day...
EVERYONE uses a web browser as an OS component today. No, really! Sun has been doing HTML documentation for a long, long time; they used to bundle Netscape 2 for the purpose of reading it (and websurfing.) Microsoft, of course, has been doing it since they integrated Aieee! Apple, naturally, uses HTML fairly liberally.
Naturally, no one else uses it to the extent that Microsoft does, to the point where folder views contain HTML. But why should Microsoft not be permitted to do this?
Microsoft bundling IE wasn't the problem. Microsoft forbidding their customers (OEMs) to bundle other web browsers (and other competing products) was. Your statements make it clear that you do not understand the problem.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's not that they work well together, but that they intentionally break means by which other software can work well with them. Exhibit A is the mutilation of Kerberos.
Nothing like the Redmond Apologist crowd? So what did they give you to turn?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Despite seacrhing for an explanation, I've never understood this. How is this done? What does it do? And why is it done?
None of your points relate to the monopoly status of Microsoft. If there were valid competition, i.e. vendors *had* to work with standards because those who did not would LOSE business.
Microsoft's monopoly control makes it bad. With greater than 90% of the personal computer market, it does not need to work with others in order to continue to do business. In fact, the normal feedback processes of capitalism are inverted with monopolies. To maintain their position they must push against a level playing field.
The argument "no one forced" the purchase of Microsoft products is patently and provably false. Go to Best Buy or Staples and buy a P.C. laptop without Windows. Just go ahead and try. The barriers put in the way are amazing.
Comcast won't support you on a P.C. if you don't use Windows, so you are forced to have a version of Windows in order to get support.
coercion is a form of force.
The Unites States rapes its own through [...] reducing taxes on the rich.
Really? If you work in the US, have you looked at you pay stub recently?
Did you know:
The top 5% of wage earners in the US pay over 53% of the income tax.
The top 10% pay nearly 65% of the income tax.
And the top 50% pay a whopping 96% of the income tax.
So you think taxes have been reduced on the rich?
What's with these constant car comparisons? What if my Volvo ran Windows, now there's a disaster scenario for you.
Seriously though, it doesn't make sense to compare preinstalled cd players or AC units in cars with Microsoft's software policies. For one because those preinstalled units were bought from a third party* on a competetive market and are subject to being switched out for a number of reasons, most important price and quality! If Microsoft released an updated Windows version every year or so and everytime evaluated their bundled browser and were prepared to switch if a competitor proved to be cheaper and of higher quality, then no one would complain! Now there is a car comparison for you. Now stop using them.
* There might be cases where this is not true although I doubt it. If there are cases, it would require the "in house" cd player to be competitive on the open market, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense for the car manufacturer to keep the production within the company. Now here's an interesting point: why the hell is IE still being produced!? Microsoft share holders ought to be outraged!
Don't be crazy anymore!
When Sun bundled Netscape 2, how tightly integrated was it? Could you remove it if you wanted to? Integrating AC into a car makes sense. Everybody expects a car to have tires, too. You don't see many auto manufactures making their cars dependent on having at least one of the tires made by the auto company.
I don't understand this round of bruhaha... When Microsoft was/is using their market position to demand that manufacturers not bundle competing products, that's a monopolistic use of power. But that's not mentioned in the complaint at all...just a bunch of whining that "they aren't standards compliant." Yes, as a developer, it blows. But just because something blows doesn't mean it's abuse; it's just an asinine business practice. Furthermore, there are many other browsers available that work just fine with Windows, including Opera. In fact, FireFox is a great browser that is very successful on Windows.
To me, it seems that Opera is whining, and the EU is protecting a company that resides within its borders. If this was really a question of companies including software w/ their OSes, then Apple should be included as well. Hell, any Linux distro includes more software by default than Windows does. And I'm not even sure what the .NET framework or Office has to do with any of this. (Frankly, Office 2007 is so hard to use that the OSS crowd should be jumping for joy. I mean, if you have to basically learn a whole new software suite, why not learn the one that cost nothing to use?)
There though is a difference in bundling and integrating. Firefox is bundled in Ubuntu, a quick apt-get remove firefox solves the problem, Konqueror is bundled in KDE I can remove Konqueror with a simple apt-get remove konqueror, although that disables some features of KDE, most programs can still be launched. IE though can't be removed by any normal methods from the OS, and that is one of the primary concerns because even if you do use a third-party browser (Opera, Firefox) you still have the flaws of IE still on your machine. In a car, if you really want to you can replace an air conditioner with another one (even though there really is no need too) but IE you can't. Even though I never have been a Sun customer I am 99% sure that Netscape can be totally removed and a different web browser loaded on with no problem, with IE you can't do that.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
There are quite a few differences between your analogy and the real thing. It is not impossible to remove the stock CD player and replace it with a higher-quality player and still have the car work properly. If you remove IE from Windows it causes problems according to MS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_Internet_Explorer and so it is nearly imposable to remove it. Your car analogy is more like a Linux distribution, you can take just about anything out and replace it and it will still be a vehicle, (probably a car, but if you want to add wings to it and a jet engine and make it a plane, go ahead) but Windows and IE is more like they put the CD player, steering wheel cover, seats, and just about everything else onto the engine making it impossible to remove one component without damaging the engine. Also, unlike in the car business, just about 90% of computers run Windows, so would a company that makes car CD players have a right to complain when 90% of their business is now not available? Yes, they would.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
Removing konqueror doesn't actually remove the web browsing component however. The KHTML component in KDE is part of KDELibs if memory serves. It's really actually very difficult to remove it, more so than removing IE from windows.
Konqueror was just an interface that heavily utilized KHTML, but lots of other programs embedded it as well.
This is NOT AT ALL the argument used against Microsoft, and I wish you would pay a little more attention. You are clearly an unreasoning Microsoft-hater. I am a reasoning Microsoft-hater, but I won't talk about why I hate them right now, only about why trying to claim that they should not be able to bundle IE is stupid.
First of all, your assertion that you can simply remove Firefox from Ubuntu Desktop is incorrect. Oh, you can remove it... but you must remove the package 'ubuntu-desktop', which depends on firefox! This will result in autoremoval of a lot of other packages (if you are doing autoremoval) and the failure to track some updates to ubuntu.
Second of all, Microsoft does not force you to use Internet Explorer for anything but HTML help and where it is embedded into applications. You can turn off web folder view. Of course, you still have to use IE to use Windows Update, but frankly, that is an entirely reasonable restriction.
Third, it is actually possible to embed gecko in the place of IE, although some applications will crap on it. The fact that they do not work the same in all situations is reason enough for Microsoft not to make it too easy to do that - they do not go out of their way to make it difficult.
Your main complaint seems to be that having IE on your system makes it potentially less secure. But making an insecure OS is not (yet?) a crime.
IT IS POSSIBLE TO REPLACE IE WITH ANOTHER BROWSER. It is possible to trap the loading of the embedded IE component and load embedded gecko instead. I have personally patched applications to do this (I don't know if the patcher is still around and/or still works, though) and had them work. However, that browser must behave just as IE does! Similarly, it is possible to replace any and all air conditioning components in any car with those from any other car, but if you expect them to work properly they must work the same way the originals did. This is no different from IE in windows! The car manufacturer does not tell you what you need to know in order to change compressors, either. They do not tell you what the bracket bolt pattern is, so that you can have another fabricated. They don't tell you what the belt thickness is. You have to figure these things out for yourself if you want to alter the system. They don't go out of their way to stop you, although they WILL void your warranty if you start tampering with things!
So basically, you have utterly failed to show any way in which Microsoft can reasonably be restricted from bundling their own software. Once again, the problem was never that they bundled their own software, but that they forbade OEMs to bundle ANOTHER web browser, remove any icons that their install process created, et cetera. THIS was the anticompetitive behavior. Part of the legal response against microsoft was to force them to unbundle certain applications, as a punitive measure. It was not because it was felt that bundling was wrong, but that it was felt that microsoft was not responsible enough to bundle. The truth was VERY different; the right that Microsoft cannot handle is having a monopoly position and being in a position to dicate terms to OEMs. If Microsoft was going to be prohibited from doing something, it should have been one of these things. The USDOJ should have broken Microsoft up into pieces when it had the chance, but as you probably know, the Bush administration effectively pardoned Microsoft by way of Ashcroft.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Microsoft didn't bundle IE, they integrated it. You can't uninstall Internet Explorer. Period.
If you use any other OS, you can delete the browser and use something else.
You could tax someone like Steve Jobs at 10% and he'd still pay more taxes (in dollars) than I would, even though I'm paying over 30% of my income as taxes. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000.
Your analogy (like most that will be presented in this article) is flawed because it does not include a monopoly for one of the markets. No one has a monopoly on cars or on air conditioners or people might feel very differently about it. As a result of this, the AC market is not broken so people have no incentive to want change. If there was a single monopolist on cars and AC cost $5000 dollars per car and released a gas that broke other car add ons not from the car maker, then you might have an accurate analogy.
As for convincing people, why would you have to? This isn't about stopping OEMs from bundling IE it is about stopping Microsoft. By your analogy, antitrust law wouldn't stop the car dealership from installing AC into all the cars they sell, even AC made by the car manufacturer. It just stops the car maker from forcing car dealers to buy their AC regardless of which is the best deal or works best.
Naturally, no one else uses it to the extent that Microsoft does, to the point where folder views contain HTML. But why should Microsoft not be permitted to do this?Am I the only one who stayed awake for my Econ 101 class? MS has monopoly influence on the desktop OS market. When they bundle a borwser with their OS, they break the Web browser market such that regardless of which browser is best, most people use IE. This is illegal in both the US and EU because it undermines the market. As a result of this behavior on the part of MS, Web technologies have been held back nearly a decade and the Web has been intentionally crippled to keep it from becoming a way to bypass MS's OS. At the same time, consumers have been deprived of the opportunity to use the best browser (most not knowing how to find and install other browsers).
Microsoft bundling IE wasn't the problem.This is simply not true. Bundling is a form of tying, explicitly described in antitrust law. Bundling a Web browser with any other product on which they have a monopoly is sufficient to violate antitrust law. I know most people don't want that to be the case, but it doesn't change matters at all.
After all these years, finally an investigation with enough width to actually cover the problem.
The browser, or the video player, all that were only just whatever the current incarnation of the real crime was. Looking into the bundling issue independent of a specific problem is what should've been done long ago.
And interoperability as well! Someone in the EU has looked at and really understood what it's all about.
That's one of the days where I'm proud to be a European.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Thank you! You can't force people to pick your favorite alternative OS by bankrupting the company selling the market leader. People have two strong alternatives to Windows (Mac OS and Linux). People, by and large, still choose Windows. That's not a monopoly, it's a consumer choice. Deal with it.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
And this relates to predatory anti-competitive practices by a monopoly how exactly?
How we know is more important than what we know.
that is microsoft design.
Taking your car analogy for a moment. Internet explorer is like the display engine for 80% of the in dash LCD systems, without it your car will run, but you won't be able to tell what your tac is doing, how much gas you have or how fast you're going.
Truly, without Internet explorer, you can't use windows explorer (without modifications anyways) the two are linked in the most godawful way humanly possible. The bar along the right, with all the crap options, the search feature with the puppy dog, all that crap is embedded IE.
Not to mention 90% of the crappy third party applications that render HTML were probably made in Visual Studio, which Microsoft has kindly included about a billion ways to embed IE with.
Here's a top five list of IE dependent 'critical' software on my work machine:
1. Outlook
2. Explorer shell (search)
3. IBM Update Utility
4. Windows Update (wuauctl)
5. IPCheck Client Utility
No doubt there are gobs more, I'm sure my corporate installed patching utility uses IE calls to download patches and lots of other crap like that...
There was a point where you could break the executable from opening, but even so unless you can find some way to get rid of the DLL, and associated calls for them every 10 seconds by some random app. even attempting to pull IE out of windows is a real pain (reboot in recovery console/bartpe delete DLLs etc.) all so you can have an OS that is totally crippled...
I've seen no evidence that Internet Explorer was actually designed with Windows in mind.
well 'leveraging a monopoly' involves actually making money by doing so - if your business involves giving stuff away I don't see how you're applying leverage - if you never make any money by doing it there's no issue - for example if you're M$ and decide that you're just going to give word away that's OK, but if you decide that you're going to use the leverage you have over hardware manufacturers to include the purchase of word in every hardware sale that uses windows - that's leveraging a monopoly - the same applies to linux except that in the linux case you're always giving the stuff away
Uh, if Microsoft had a monopoly on web browsers, or if the existence of IE caused Mozilla-based browsers (or others) not to work, then you might have a point.
Am I the only one who stayed awake for my Econ 101 class? MS has monopoly influence on the desktop OS market. When they bundle a borwser with their OS, they break the Web browser market such that regardless of which browser is best, most people use IE.Except that, once again, this wasn't the real problem. Microsoft was come down on not because the bundled a browser, but because they forced OEMs to not bundle other browsers. Computer users WERE asking for a better browser, and OEMs wanted to provide them, but Microsoft refused to allow them to do so. THIS was the truly anticompetitive behavior.
At the same time, consumers have been deprived of the opportunity to use the best browser (most not knowing how to find and install other browsers).Which, again, was caused primarily by Microsoft refusing to allow OEMs to bundle other browsers - not even instead of IE, but in addition to it.
Bundling is a form of tying, explicitly described in antitrust law.Bundling is not tying, because force is absent. Bundling is not tying in the absence of pricing that prevents sales by an equally efficient competitor. Monopoly leverage, using a monopoly to try to gain a monopoly in another area, is also not a violation of the Sherman act; thus trying to gain a monopoly in the Web browser market via a monopoly in the operating system market is not even illegal! The only web browser-producing "competitor" to Microsoft whose efficiency (in that market alone, naturally) even approached Microsoft's was Netscape, and they were giving the browser away. Thus, no sales were prevented.
In fact, Netscape was dumping their product on the market, by giving it away at a price substantially lower than the production cost, in order to gain purchase against IE. Of course, IE was also given away free, so it's not like there was any difference there. Netscape gave away Navigator in order to sell their server product.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Explorer search can be configured back to the old behavior, which doesn't even use the animated search character, which can be turned off in any case. IBM Update util and IPCheck are not Microsoft's fault - they didn't force these people to embed IE. Blaming Microsoft for the laziness of others is pretty ridiculous. If you don't want to use windows GUI crap, don't use it! It's possible to install cygwin on top of NT :P
Basically you're complaining about the reliability, which is stupid, because we are talking about anticompetitive practice. Don't want to use IE for technical reasons? That's fine. But it's not remotely what we're talking about here. If I want to take some core component of Solaris out because I don't like it, I have to develop a workalike. Why should Windows NT be any different?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I don't think he misunderstands it at all. The problem, precisely, is that windows needing IE, as he wrote, effectively forces distributors to bundle it. The fact that a number of Windows features simply refuse to work without it (as opposed to any other browser) is the real problem I think most people complain about. I don't think anybody would complain if your browser of course could work as a complete drop-in replacement for IE, but, in Windows, it can't.
And what does their income distribution look like?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
To further your analogy, when it becomes a problem is when when your dashboard stops working because you decide to only use a third party CD player. That, I think, is makes the analogy a little more accurate.
Say, Greyfox. Nothing like redundant sphincters that can log in and mod down the hell out of people, huh?
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
aren't a corporation that extracts or extorts billions out of other corporations and squeezes billions out of those people and corporations and governments trapped in ms code. So, you needn't empathise nor sympathise for the likes of msoft.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Indeed, the reason why the EU is making such a fuss is because they realised the now-impotent DOJ just isn't gonna. The DOJ *could have* done something about it, but didn't. Realistically, the EU can't do a whole lot except try to prevent a repeat performance and dish out punishment for proven past disgressions (which they're perfectly entitled to do, as per European law, which Microsoft is bound to if it trades over here).
Insofar as the "biggies" are concerned, though: bundling of DOS, then Windows, then IE, then Media Player, there's not a lot that anybody can do after the fact. The EU has to be seen to be taking steps (preventative and otherwise), so they really have to do *something*. Certainly, web developers the world over still have a bitter taste in their mouths as a result of the bundling of IE, crowbarring it into being a monopoly itself.
The whole "they should be forced to unbundle {IE, Media Player, whatever}" thing really just comes down to "well, do we let them carry on, so that it looks like they've done nothing wrong?".
I wouldn't probe Steve Balmer or any of the other Microsoft guys even with the EU's d... never mind.
That is all.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Sigh, not again. How many bloody times do I have to explain it. Antitrust law makes bundling a monopolized product with a product in another market. The US, EU and several other jurisdictions have already convicted MS of abusing their monopoly in the desktop OS market, thus they legally have a monopoly in the desktop OS market. They bundled IE with that monopolized product. This is the same as someone with a monopoly in the car business bundling car accessories.
Except that, once again, this wasn't the real problem. Microsoft was come down on not because the bundled a browser, but because they forced OEMs to not bundle other browsers. Which, again, was caused primarily by Microsoft refusing to allow OEMs to bundle other browsers - not even instead of IE, but in addition to it.That's just exacerbating the abuse. MS has already been convicted of bundling IE, which is illegal all by itself.
Bundling is not tying, because force is absent.Bundling is the very first example of tying listed in US antitrust law and is the most common form of antitrust abuse prosecuted. Please learn the facts rather than arguing what you wish was true.
Bundling is not tying in the absence of pricing that prevents sales by an equally efficient competitor.MS sells a bundle which includes both Windows and IE. Some of that money goes to develop IE. Users don't have the option of buying just Windows for a price that is lower than the bundle. Thus, users are forced to buy IE, rather than saving that money and buying a competing offering.
Monopoly leverage, using a monopoly to try to gain a monopoly in another area, is also not a violation of the Sherman act;No it is a violation of the Clayton act. MS has already been convicted by the US on this count, how can you claim it isn't illegal?
The only web browser-producing "competitor" to Microsoft whose efficiency (in that market alone, naturally) even approached Microsoft's was Netscape, and they were giving the browser away. Thus, no sales were prevented.Wrong, direct sales are not the only way to cause financial harm. For example, Firefox is paid for directing users to Google. They are paid less because of MS's actions using their monopoly to push IE.
In fact, Netscape was dumping their product on the market, by giving it away at a price substantially lower than the production cost, in order to gain purchase against IE.It doesn't matter because Netscape didn't have a monopoly and aren't relevant. This is about what MS is doing today to affect the market.
Sigh, you are the worst MS apologist ever. You'll take any farfetched claim and make it, regardless of the facts. Sad.
... just some poor uninformed guy. Here, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Negative_aspects to realize why a monopoly is a bad thing. No, wait, have you ever heard of OPEC? They are pretty close on that one, don't you know what they can do to your economy?
Except it doesn't make sense. Designing things to work together is one thing, but doing so while intentionally making it impossible for anyone else to do the same is what this is all about. The video game analogy is false because although an xbox can't play wii games, you can certainly buy the same title for both consoles (not in all cases, but the fact that it is even possible is what is relevant). Microsoft controls the OS and Office market and leverages this monopoly to deliberately lock out competitors. For instance, I am forced to keep a virtual machine running XP with Office installed to do something as trivial as read a document. Since Microsoft has leveraged their monopoly to make .doc the de-facto standard and then prevented competitors from freely implementing that standard, they are likely violating antitrust laws. Additionally, they recently took it one step further with their attempt to hijack the ISO process and force their "open" standard on everyone in an effort to legitimize the aforementioned behavior.
Lets not forget about the cost of acquiring Windows and Office in order to read a document. Would you consider it fair if you had to pay Microsoft a few hundred dollars to read your morning newspaper?
Maybe you should learn something about what you're talking about before reaching a conclusion.
Will this go the same way as Windows XP Home Edition N (ie.Windows sans WMP)?
According to wikipedia:
"Consumer interest has been low, with roughly 1,500 units shipped to OEMs, and no reported sales to consumers"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#Windows_XP_Edition_N
Shouldn't the EU be going at the real problem? Like the secret agreements that MS have in place to prevent OEMs from installing non-approved software.
I work in the US and have looked at my pay stub. Try looking at the percentage of ones income to what that person pays in taxes. Remember that after $75,000 the amount of tax you pay goes down. So someone making $44,000 a year only get a few hundred less per check then someone making $74,000 a year. Once one clears the $75,000 mark the pay check start to go up fast. So yes the top income people pay less (percentage wise) then the lower income people. Middle through upper middle income people pay roughly 40% of their pay in taxes. The rich do not pay 40% of their total income in taxes. In pure dollars a rich person pays more then a non rich person. When you look at the percentage of what they pay in taxes to what they earned, the rich are paying less then the middle class.
What MS did to the ISO process was so damaging that it has drawn the direct attention of the Commission. I had a feeling the Commission would examine it the moment they were made aware - the EU is very dependent on standards (any community is) and the damage MS has caused extends well beyond their little file format war.
The EU is lifting the covers off this one to see what type of standard MS was trying to ram through. Given the rather extensive amount of proprietary elements in MSOOXML I think they're in for another lashing - especially given the "collateral" damage (to use a popular military term).
It's one thing to draw scrutiny. It's another thing entirely to be back in the spotlight because it appears to suggest that the fine wasn't high enough. It's interesting that the EU seems to have a brain and teeth whereas the DoJ appears to only employ wet noodle slapping.
Insert
Besides, I haven't seen any signs recently that the EU is at all impressed by the US opinion in this matter since it demonstrably operates well within the WTO framework.
Last but not least ... the US has enough troubles of its own to head for a trade war with its largest trade partner in the world. And just about the only major one with which, by the way, doesn't have a massive deficit.
So no. The EU might see some grumblings from the US, but it need't worry about any follow-up action. The EU is free to apply its fair-competition laws to Microsoft and there will be no-one in Washington willing to risk even a luncheon voucher to help Microsoft out.
So Microsoft just might just find that it's cheapest for them to play fair for a change.
I'm not re-typing my post, I'll just link to it.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
In other news, the European Union is launching an investigation into the monopoly that smart people have on the job market. According to recent statistics, 90% of employees in the technology industry have IQs over 100, while less than 2% have IQs less than 80. According to the complaint filed by the representatives for the mentally challenged, smart people continually engage in anticompetitive behavior to keep the mentally challenged out of the job market. Of particular note is the amount of bundling that most smart people force on their employers; it is common for a smart person to be able to communicate effectively, write complete sentences, perform multiple job functions and assist others on the job. Additionally, smart people continually refuse to work with those less intelligent, monopolizing even the hiring process to do so, instead of remaining interoperable with them.
European commissioner Neelie Kroes has expressed deep anger at smart people's obvious monopolization of the job market and abuse of that monopoly to keep the mentally challenged from being hired. She has vowed to investigate and take whatever action is necessary to reduce smart people's stranglehold on competition, including both fines and the prescription of neuroinhibitors to put them on an equal footing with the mentally challenged. She then said that success would be when less than 50% of the world's employees had IQ's greater than 100.
The borg should be replaced with bulleye target.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
How many of the billion or so users on this planet give a damn about the formal definition of an OS?
The mass market votes for the PC with out-of-the-box utility. It expects to see a media player. It expects to see a browser.
You don't mind being laughed at?
There is no law that says you can't bundle products, it's Microsoft's punishment for abusing its monopoly position.
I agree, Netscape 4 was pretty unstable, but MSIE has had so many terrible security holes, I'd rather take a browser crash now and then over constant virus infections.
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
From OSX tech specs:
Applications: Address Book, Automator, Calculator, Chess, Dashboard, Dictionary, DVD Player, Exposé, Font Book, Front Row, iCal, iChat, Image Capture, iSync (Supported Devices), iTunes, Mail, Photo Booth, Preview, QuickTime Player, Safari, Spaces, Stickies, System Preferences, TextEdit, Time Machine
Utilities: Activity Monitor, AirPort Utility, Audio MIDI Setup, Boot Camp Assistant, Bluetooth File Exchange, ColorSync Utility, Console, Digital Color Meter, Directory, Directory Utility, Disk Utility, Grab, Grapher, Keychain Access, Migration Assistant, Network Utility, ODBC Administrator, Podcast Capture, RAID Utility, Setup Assistant, System Profiler, Terminal, VoiceOver Utility, X11
Key Technologies: AppleScript, Aqua, Bonjour, CDSA security architecture, Cocoa, Carbon, and Java, ColorSync, Core Animation, Core Audio, Core Image, Core Video, H.264, Inkwell, OpenGL, PDF, Quartz Extreme, QuickTime 7, 64-bit computing, Sync, Unicode 4, Universal Access, UNIX, USB and FireWire peripheral support, Xgrid
Development: Xcode 3 IDE with Interface Builder 3, Instruments, Dashcode, AppleScript Studio, Automator 2, Shark, GCC compiler and toolset (original project by FSF.org), DTrace (original project by Sun), Complete Java JDK, including javac, javadoc, ANT, and Maven tools, Apache web server, AppleScript, Ruby and the Ruby on Rails frameworks, Python, Perl, PHP, SQLite
That seems like a completely reasonable feature set for an OS though, right? My favorite part is Boot Camp -- it's ok to run Windows if you run it on Apple hardware bundled with OSX, but there's no way they'll let you run OSX on anything but Apple hardware. If the EU wants to discourage anticompetitive tactics, it needs to be consistent.
They would if they reasonably could. I wonder how many 3rd parties make replacement wheels for the Hummers that can self-inflate?
More on topic... I think that if MS removed the IE component from windows, it would basically just be reverting to IE6, removing the shortcut, and removing acess to nonlocal resources(ie web browsing, FTP).
What good does that do? I'd rather have the option to use IE if most of the pieces will still be in the system anyways. Someone said it earlier, that the real issue should be MS's insistance in having thier browser as the default (Truthfully, I don't even know if that is true and if it's not true ignore this).
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
When peoples aircons refuse to work unless you are have shell petrol in the tank call me...
Microsoft are not getting busted for merely including these programs with Windows. That's only one half of it.
The other half is that the web browser bundled with Windows does not follow "fundamental and open" standards for how web browsers render pages. Essentially, Microsoft is getting busted for trying to subvert the commonly accepted web standards and replace them with proprietary IE-style web standards.
Same goes for the Office file interoperability, although that seems to not be mentioned in the ars technia article, but is mentioned in this one.
Microsoft has had to license a mass of proprietary protocol documentation.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
I really think it would have been better for Microsoft as a company if the DOJ had broken them up. As it is today everthing in the office automation, information processing, and home entertainment spaces that can be done with a computer(or network of small computing devices) pretty much as been or has been at least talked about. Those are Microsofts core spaces.
Microsoft can no longer do anything without the specture of Anti-trust law looming. I think its caused them a great deal of uncertainty in terms of product roadmap and generally taken away from their focus. The only products of theirs that seem to be improving are Exchange and Windows Server itself which are becoming functionally more like the Unix and VMS systems that inspired them in the first place. They are certainly not doin anything new; because their ain't much new to do, and skipping logical points of intergation to avoid stepping on toes that might go crying to the DOA.
Don't get me wrong I hate what Microsoft has done to the industry as much as the next Slashdoter. I also think two or three Microsofts would more then likely suck all the oxygen out room just as much as the one monolith does; but at least we might see some real progress.
Over the last six to eight years we have gotten just about exactly nothing from Microsoft of real value. Oh and don't say DotNet was inovative. It took Microsoft two years to figure out what DotNet was themselves and its not new either. Sandboxed byte code interpreters existed already; JAVA as well as others. Ok so Microsoft made some more compilers for other languagues targeting their byte code. Big deal its was an obvious move, anyone wanting to invest the man hours could have done the same thing with Java; and if nobody had well CPUs have gotten fast. Pure interpreters would have filled the space.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
And when the competing browser crashes are instigated by IE or some other random code in the OS because it is competing? Microsoft has done this before...
seriously. Apple and the Linux distros all bundle software in with Linux. If anything, they bundle in more stuff than Microsoft does. I'm kinda concerned that this could be taken to an extreme that will hurt everyone, not just Windows.
lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
I doubt it, at least financially. Monopolies allow you to make money without creating anything of benefit to customers.
Microsoft can no longer do anything without the specture of Anti-trust law looming.This just isn't true. MS has a lot of lawyers and the law is clear. They know when the way they introduce products is antitrust abuse and when it is not and they tend towards the former because they know it will make them more money. Nothing at all stops MS from creating new products, not tied to monopolized ones and competing fairly with them... it is just less profitable. MS isn't accidentally breaking antitrust law, they are a lot more informed than the average Slashdot reader. They do it willfully, betting the penalties will not be bigger than the profits, and they've been right every time so far.
I also think two or three Microsofts would more then[sic] likely suck all the oxygen out room just as much as the one monolith does; but at least we might see some real progress.Two or three Microsofts would compete with each other and we'd get better products as a result.
Over the last six to eight years we have gotten just about exactly nothing from Microsoft of real value.Why would they bother? It is easier and more profitable to leverage products into other markets, rather than create something good enough to compete fairly. DRM doesn't help MS's customers, but it does let them move into the media downloads market. Why work on user features when anti-features make more cash?
sudo apt-get remove iceweasel
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
iceweasel iceweasel-gnome-support
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 2 to remove and 245 not upgraded.
Need to get 0B of archives.
After unpacking 27.5MB disk space will be freed.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
- Operating system & networking drivers
- Network client applications. (browsers, email, chat etc.)
- Server softwares. (IIS, File server etc.)
- Databases. (Access, SQL Server etc.)
- Office applications. (Excel, Word, Powerpoint etc.)
- Software development.
And require that all these are geographically separated and that the documentation about all interfaces are publicly available for competitors.Of course - this means that the chair-throwing guy will lose a lot of control.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Well duh, For the PILO-mechanism... Pizza-In Lawsuit-Out Then again.. Lately it appears more like the LIPO system...
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough
When is the EU going to do something about that thing? People around me have noticed alternatives to windows, but one of the most important reasons NOT to make the jump (to them) is games (of which 99.9% are windows only, because of DirectX).
Once Microsoft is forced to remove that from windows, and to actually charge for it (in a per seat license), Microsoft is going to feel the hurt a lot more as being forced to unbundle IE and MSN-messenger. This because most PC games are currently designed to only work with DirectX (and thus windows). This gives windows a major advantage in the OS market.
EVERYONE uses a web browser as an OS component today. No, really! Sun has been doing HTML documentation for a long, long time; they used to bundle Netscape 2 for the purpose of reading it (and websurfing.) Microsoft, of course, has been doing it since they integrated Aieee! Apple, naturally, uses HTML fairly liberally.
Really?
I cant remember when I last used a webbrowser on my webserver... Or my counterstrike server for that matter!
Umm no. ubuntu-desktop is just a meta package. You can remove it just fine. However please note that you should re-add it before you do a dist-upgrade (ie upgrading to a newer Ubuntu version) or the uninstall fest you mentioned will happen.
But we can also buy the car WITHOUT air conditioning and get a fair discount. Actually in my country more than half of new cars are bought w/o AC.
It's called a joke... and register for a /. account so I can laugh at you some more.
I wouldn't consider it fair to pay Microsoft a few hundred dollars to read my newspaper. So I get Open Office. There are choices. If I wanted the ease of use of MS Office, I could buy it. There's no reason they shouldn't make their software compatible with themselves and make it especially for their own OS, but ultimately it's the consumers choice what they buy. Nothing's being shoved down anybody's throats. Open office reads MS Office documents fairly well.
And your point that some games can be aquired on multiple platforms overlooks the simple fact that some software titles can be gotten on multiple platforms. Heck! I can get MS Office for the Mac! I can run Photoshop where ever I please. I can run Opera on all the major OS's. But I can't get the latest Internet Explorer on mac (I can get an old version). But safari works in windows- so is this really an antitrust issue any more so than the fact that HALO will only be an XBOX game? Not really.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
(1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
China has a looming issue that I think a lot of people forget. Their population is aging, fast. With their one child per houshold initiative their average age is being pushed even higher. Taking care of half a billion retired citizens is going to become a serious strain on their economy. It will be interesting to see what type off effect this will have.
Meanwhile millions of fools continue to rub their penis to Halo on xbox, funding Microsoft while saying they hate them.
Would you like chairs with that?
That is an industry far more sane than software development and commercialization.
In many places you can buy the same model with or without air conditioning, with or without heating.
Fluffy USians, no wonder their carbon footprint is so disgraceful.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"US Launches Another Antitrust Probe Into AIRBUS (Score:-1, Troll)"
/. community collective delusion
Gashdot moderation is bullshit.
This is not a troll,its the alternate view to your skewed views on politics and macro economics.
The moderators here are obviously clueless and cant tell trolling from information that coutners their and much of the
People had to build them themselves.
The market was so destroyed by the monopoly that the only solution left was to roll your sleeves and start coding.
Find a car analogy, I am sure you will see how bad that would be in such hypothetical situation.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
a) It isn't about disk space but about virus protection. If you can remove FF from Linux or Windows, you are no longer open to any attacks that use that application or its libraries as a vector. IE remains a vulnerability even if you "remove" it because as you say in your second point...
b) IE is used as the ONLY system html renderer. If all it needed was an html renderer, why not make an api that can be replaced? (note: IE is spit around a lot of DLLs so that it can't be found or replaced by a hacked DLL.
Shows what you know, eh.
I can't tell if you really believe all that garbage or if you're just being a persistent troll, but I'll bite.
.doc format is unreliable, especially for important things like resumes or reports. Put another way, its being forced to pay Microsoft if I want to write something and have someone else read it. If you want the so-called "ease of use" of MS Office and want to buy it then thats your choice. However, its not my choice, but since Microsoft owns the Office market, I am really left with no choice at all. If that isn't having it shoved down my throat I don't know what is. And regardless, absolutely none of this has anything to do with Microsoft making their software compatible with their OS, its about them deliberately making their software incompatible with anything else but their own software. While its usually just fine if someone wants to keep things all closed up, the rules change when you're a convicted monopolist and you use that monopoly (illegally) to leverage a separate market and lock out competitors.
The Open Office crew had to reverse engineer the spec and you know as well as I do that it's not always perfect. While I feel its perfectly adequate for viewing documents, saving to the
As for the video games, you completely missed the point, although the analogy is imperfect. I was referring to the fact that there is diversity and choice, and that nobody is kept from implementing a given program on any given platform (I know that realistically this is unlikely given the cost involved, but as I said the analogy isn't perfect).
Your rant about running Photoshop or Opera or Safari is irrelevant. Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with that. Also, the fact that they make a Mac version of Office has absolutely nothing to do this either. Shelling out cash to Microsoft in order to accurately and consistently exchange information with other people is what is the issue. This is done intentionally by Microsoft so they don't have to compete. I don't see how you can't understand that.
Honestly, in order to better my perspective, I play the devils' advocate a lot.
The problem in my argument lies in the simple fact that whether or not Microsoft wants to play by their rules- they've got so much ground that they'd got to. If you had a small company doing exactly the same thing as microsoft, there would be no issue with it, because there's nothing inherently wrong with what they do.
The concept just doesn't scale well, other than to say it only applies with scale.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Are you an idiot or what?
Do you know the definition of monopoly?
And monopoly is not the direct problem here. In your example with cars:
Lets presume that there is only 1 brand of cars from only 1 manufacturer.
That manufacturer decides that they want a piece of automotive A/C pie. So they start producing cars with patented, digitally controlled power connector for car A/C, so they start pushing other A/C manufacturers out of market by leveraging their automobile business.
And hey, that just happens to be antitrust violation.
And if you start saying that they give IE for free, you are stupider than I presumed.
It's actually illegal to be a monopoly in the EU. That's what's fundamentally different between the US and EU. If a corporation like Microsoft just by existing harms consumers (and companies) it's illegal and punishable. In the US you would have to prove that they did something harmful other than being a monopoly.
I must have missed the part where it is explained why the EU courts are always right.
Anyway, once again, this is NOT what happened. What happened is that Microsoft refused to allow the distribution of other browsers on computers shipped by OEMs, and THAT is why the other web browsers have such poor penetration, which in turn is why IE became the de facto standard for the web. The OEMs WANTED to ship Netscape alongside of IE but Microsoft told them they'd lose special pricing if they did so. And THAT is the actual case in which Microsoft leveraged their monopoly position to kill other web browsers. Not by giving IE away for free, or supposedly bundling or tying it.
IE was originally a separate download and it was included with the OS only when it was integrated into the OS. At this point it is arguably a portion of the system, and not a bundled application. I'm not sure where the line is, to be honest, but I'm sure Microsoft crossed over into the safe zone there. And it's not tied because it's not mandatory for anything other than maintaining windows, specifically installing updates and making some downloads.
Look, Microsoft is bad. Really bad. I would definitely support breaking the company up into bits and prison sentences for a number of the executive officers who initiated or were complicit in anticompetitive practice. But there are some things that they did that are bad, and some things they did that are not bad. And I mean that in both an ethical and technical sense. Integrating IE with Windows was morally OK (at least, IMO) but technically stupid. Refusing to allow OEMs to bundle other browsers is just plain wrong. Refusing to allow OEMs to ship other operating systems is just plain wrong (although they've loosened up on this since the EU antitrust decision.) There are many reasonable causes to hate Microsoft, why mess with these ridiculous ones?
My point really is that there is no need to have separate rules for monopolies in order for business to be fair. You only need to enforce the laws that apply to all businesses in a reasonable fashion, and start enforcing from the largest to the smallest in order to accomplish that. But corporations in general are not interested in fairness. And that includes various corporate-controlled governments, which means basically all of them. Here in the US, Bush's USDOJ in the form of Ashcroft let Microsoft walk. In the EU they fined them plenty, but that's not enough, now is it? If the corporate officers were simply held responsible, we wouldn't have the problem anyway.
Naturally, that will never happen to Gates. Look for him to become a major player in American politics (if the nation holds together long enough for him to be interested.) He's obviously connected with the right people, the Gates foundation has invested for profit in various industrial sectors (like power) and has big piles of money, in control of which we find Billy himself.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I apologize for not being sufficiently pedantic, and will redouble my efforts in the future. I consider updating to be part of the ordinary workings of the system, since unlike Windows, upgrading an Ubuntu system between major revisions tends to produce a useful system. I have updated my laptop several times starting with Dapper and it's still ticking along nicely (aside from that the latest mysql 5 upgrade seems to have crapped.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"