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 the present admistration has the same relationship as the last one.
At least it's non-partism
I guess that means there will be a new mandatory version update of windows7 out in June 2011 then.
It might be tough going through life with a name that sounds like a feminine hygiene product.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
No, I think that you're dead wrong on your history.
As I recall, I was downloading Netscape and other browsers for free at the time of the lawsuit - the issues were that Microsoft was either not allowing vendors such as HP and Dell to distribute Windows with non-IE browsers (loss of contract) or requiring a contract change that was basically punitive in the extreme.
MS then came out with the Active Desktop, showing that IE was just absolutely, completely technically required for the latest OS release - I recall dimly that it was Win2k.
And that's when the shit hit the fan, as far as the plaintiffs and the court was concerned.
I get that this is /. and there's no need to RTFA, but how about the other reference? http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/01/2034207&tid=123
This wasn't about browsers, it was about an illegal monopoly.
And, on a side note - you have got to be kidding me about ftp downloading, even back in the day. Seriously.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
It's good to hear that Microsoft is now a trustworthy company, and will now be making products with the features we need, and fairly competing with other companies.
Have they announced a built-in spellchecker in Windows 7 yet?
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....
If IBM had not been subject to antitrust rulings, would it have developed its own OS for the PC?
Under no circumstances. The PC project was fast and needed as much outsourcing as they could get in order to get to market within a year. IBM had no chance to develop its own OS because the project didn't have the time for that.[1]
None of this had anything to do with an anti-trust ruling. It's more like Gates' hurried adoption of the BSD TCP stack in NT. "Would MS have developed its own if it hadn't been under scrutiny by the DoJ?" Absurd!
Put identity in the browser.