Slashdot Mirror
Antitrust Regulators To Monitor Windows 7, But Not Later Releases
CWmike writes "Gregg Keizer reports that federal and state regulators have struck a deal with Microsoft under which any version of Windows released after May 2011 will not be subject to the scrutiny mandated by a 2002 antitrust settlement. As previously promised, however, Windows 7 will be put under the microscope. Yesterday, the DOJ filed documents (PDF) with US District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly asking that she extend her oversight by at least 18 months, until May 12, 2011. Although Microsoft has consented to the extension — and acknowledged that the regulators can later ask for another 18 months — Kollar-Kotelly must approve the request."
I guess that means there will be a new mandatory version update of windows7 out in June 2011 then.
I actually agree. In the early days of the internet, when Netscape was being sold, bundling IE with Windows was definitely wrong, but these days, browsers are free. I need something to download Firefox with on a new computer, and ftp is a bit hard unless you memorize URLs. Also, Windows 7 is actually removing a lot of stuff from the core OS that was in Vista, such as the Photo Gallery and Movie Maker, in favor of splitting them off into the Windows Live suite. On a side note, WLMM is quite possibly the worst video editing software ever, and makes WMM look amazing.
All your base are belong to Wii.
If by "non-partisan" you mean that both sides are equally bought and paid for, then yes...
When our government can't follow it's own laws, rules and procedures, we can't expect them to change anything without motivation because NO ONE changes without motivation especially when what they are doing seems to be working so very well for them. (And to be clear, the problem isn't the corruptible people in office it's opportunity and lack of consequences. You or I would probably do exactly the same crap in the same situations of power without checks/balances and no consequences. Hell, I'd drive on the wrong side of the road if there were no consequences!)
There certainly was in 1998. Just because you were probably still crapping your pants back then (who knows, maybe you still are) doesn't mean that it wasn't an anti-competitive act then, or that Microsoft has really reformed itself. The OOXML fiasco shows the only way to deal with Microsoft is to cut it into pieces, or at least hold massive fines over its head and force it to play nice, not to go "Oh well, we don't care any more".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What the hell are you talking about? did you expect then to take a microscopic look at all MS OSs forever?
seriously, that would be completly asinine.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Citing astounding technological advances (Clippy now mostly works), Microsoft expects to release Windows 8 just one week after the release of Windows 7. "We made a lot of significant and fundamental changes that support this new release" said Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates.
What was asinine was not breaking the company up when it was convicted.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
They give up their right to oppose any extension of the Final Judgement due to expire this year which would leave them without being monitored by regulators on November 12, 2009, when the previous two-year extension of the judgement is due to expire. Under this agreement, the Final Judgement would be extended by another 18 months from the currently scheduled expiration, with another 18 month extension possible.
If IBM had not been subject to antitrust rulings, would it have developed its own OS for the PC?
You know, they might have. They might have even started by contracting Microsoft to write it for them. They might have even developed a special PC and collaboratively called the operating system OS2. They might have even discovered that Microsoft burned them with an excruciating POS. They might have watched in horror while Microsoft used OS2 as a launch point for an OS that had none of OS2's bugs. And they have gone berserk when Microsoft called their new product Windows.
And they might have decided to completely re-write the operating system on their own. And they might have succeeded. And they might have called it OS2 Warp. And they might have gotten lots of press FUD while their OS completely blew Windows 95 out of the water.
We only know that IBM was the target of an antitrust action and that they developed a great (in its day) PC OS. We don't know if they wouldn't have were it not for the antitrust action.
But they were on board with the idea of moving away from the command line - Apple's sales in those days were nothing to sneeze at. And we know that in those days, IBM was feeling the sting of being victimized by their own greed in the MS contract that allowed MS-DOS to support clones when they'd thought that had the market sewn up with PC-DOS and their machines.
So, they tried it again with the PS2/OS2 lock in. The PS2 gave us some great tech for its day. But the combo, frankly, sucked. OS2 Warp was fab - ran on clones - but you only get to screw the market so much before it moves on.
The market believed that it was IBM alone screwing them, Microsoft slipped in under the radar. Remember, in those days, Microsoft was quite the darling of the CP/M and Apple (pre-Mac and early Mac) communities. Apple and CP/M good, IBM bad. Looked like Microsoft would save us with MS-DOS.
See where that got us.
So the answer to your question seems to be what we all already know - antitrust rulings don't stifle technology, monopolies do.
(PS - Nothing personal about the sarcasm - I just get that way on this subject in general.)
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
Seriously! When the EEE PC came on the scene, Microsoft was forced to dump Vista and go back to the old Windows XP and release a Service Pack to make it work. And likewise Downgrade Rights from Vista to XP.... which is now continuing with Windows 7 to XP as well.
And now, Windows 7 actually consumes lesser resources and is faster on the same hardware, compared to the previous version Vista. This has happened not because of the regulators, but the market realities. And likewise, the success of Firefox has made the different releases of IE and artificial restrictions of OS versions and IE versions meaningless in the market.
Honestly I cannot imagine a single useful thing achieved by these regulators. Better wind the whole organisation up and move on.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....