Slashdot Mirror
The History of Microsoft's Anti-Competitive Behavior
jabjoe writes "Groklaw is highlighting a new document from the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (PDF) about the history of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Quoting: 'ECIS has written it in support of the EU Commission's recent preliminary findings, on January 15, 2009, that Microsoft violated antitrust law by tying IE to Windows. It is, to the best of my knowledge, the first time that the issue of Microsoft's patent threats against Linux have been framed in a context of anti-competitive conduct.' The report itself contains interesting quotes, like this one from Microsoft's Thomas Reardon: '[W]e should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take more advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps.' It also has the Gates 1998 Deposition."
Clearly Microsoft's agenda is to use their existing desktop monopoly to grab a monopoly in the cloud.
Since that didn't work out so well for them re: the internet, I'm not all that worried.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Bill's strong point was always the fact that he was a shrewd businessman. His tactics obviously weren't always friendly but you can't deny that he created an incredibly powerful company in a relatively short period of time. I am, however, looking forward to seeing more time spent on technology and less time spent sidelining competitors.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Ok, I'm showing some age here.
Remember in 1989 the Stacker disk compression fiaso?
I think that was one of the original examples of this kind of behavior, in this case Stac electronics were able to get some money from MS - but it was a sour victory as MS has effectively removed them from the market place in the process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics
nearly 30 years of watching MS I have no faith that the firm will *ever* play fair, and as a business trying to please their shareholders it is very naive to expect them to do so. they have a monopoly and will abuse it to their benefit as long as they can get away with it.
Given the opportunity it is very hard for any person or company to pass up a chance to change the rules of a game in a way that disadvantages its competition in that game. This is especially true when survival is at stake. We do not and should never condone this type of behavior but we must realize it is natural and (without regard to morality) should be expected. This type behavior is bad for our industry as we have all seen so we must always be aware that some company out there will always try this as a means to advantage and stop it to allow strength to be generated via fierce competition.
I remember one of my first computer courses in school where we were taught computer history. I still remember the professor telling us about the early days of Microsoft and how it didn't take long for them to start ripping off ideas, only to then buy the company that was suing them.
And they're still in business. Something's wrong here.
Since that didn't work out so well for them re: the internet, I'm not all that worried.
I know you're talking about sites, but it worked horrifically well with browsers. Do you know of a large commercial site that can afford to ignore IE6?
I heard the matter-of-fact assertion that Bill wrote DOS again in a book on tape that I am listening to. (13 Things That Don't Make Sense: The Most Baffling Scientific Mysteries of Our Time by Michael Brooks).
I also remember the same matter-of-fact assertion on the A&E network many years back, probably on the program biography.
So it seems like Bill was not only able to effectively steal ideas but also to somehow get these false ideas that he was the creator of them as well. He's seen a the genius behind lots of things that he has no claim to other than popularizer. People claim he's a computer genius when he's really a marketing genius. I think computer science, with its great many breakthroughs that help improve human ability, deserves much more than this.
Out of curiosity, why do you think it didn't work out so well for them re: the internet?
I read a good chunk of Bill's book The Road Ahead maybe a couple of years after the internet went mainstream (the book was published in '95). His comments, thoughts and strategies showed that the man did not have clue one about what he was getting into. Oh wait, Ballmer's in charge now? Naaah, I'm still not worried.
MS as we knew it is dead. Only thing still carrying it is inertia.
Just remember come tax time next year, it's partly your taxes* that make sure MS doesn't abuse its monopoly.
Not me bub, I'm a canuck. Besides, that sentence is laughable. US regulatory agencies have become such a joke it's not funny anymore.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
I just read through the entire document and I have to say that, well, it's probably the most professional, fleshed-out, well-worded summary of Microsoft's major illegal actions over the past two decades.
While nothing it says is necessarily new, the fact that several of the accusations people have been making for years have finally been put into one very highly professional document that is actually being used in a case that might finally do something about Microsoft's monopoly is impressive and has given me a lot of hope.
MS doesn't have a monopoly or even the top market share in some categories the EU is interested in such as servers. MS's presence in those markets is actually increasing competition. As was the case in the US, the EU is probably more interested in protecting specific MS competitors than in helping the consumer.
What, like Windows does?
Really? I don't believe in intellectual property... do you?
I do.
-Linux user
I also believe that like most property, it can be made freely available.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Bad research has been around for a long time and writers can be guilty of it without any help from Bill Gates.
I guess people say that Gates is a "marketing genius" because they don't want to believe he's a real geek and they have to come up with some explanation for his success. If you've ever seen Bill Gates do a presentation you'd know how absurd this "marketing genius" belief is. Steve Jobs is the marketing genius in this business.
The fact is that MS existed before the PC and Gates really wrote code for their Basic interpreters. They were written in multiple assembly languages for each target processor. That's geek enough for you.
Actually, I think the exact opposite happened. Back when Gates was in control you had at least halfway working products (and the reason of Windows ME imho was mainly because they tried to squeeze out one more 9x version for monetary gain and nobody was really interested in the project because NT was coming to the desktop anyway).
Gates was more focused on marketing than technology though and that's what got them in the current position in the first place. Ballmer is more focused on income (keeping the monopoly and selling more licenses to increase lock-in) than anything else as you can see with the recent licensing models for netbooks, SharePoint and 3rd world countries. I think Vista was more because of Ballmer than because of Gates. At the time Vista started, Gates was already working his way out and dedicating time to his philanthropy. Windows 7 imho is just Vista SP3 or "what Vista should've been but we had to release something fast in order to counter Mac OS X".
The company itself has never been about technology at the core. It always either steals or buys the best from elsewhere (DOS, OS/2, VMS, ...) and makes it 'just good enough' to sell a boxed products and then makes marketing or licensing sell it.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Are you for real?!?
Bill Gates took a common good, walled it off and called it his property. He wasn't a shrewd businessman. He was a thief who destroyed massive amounts of value, created chaos, misunderstanding and distrust among technical workers and set both ethics and technology back decades. There are few if any individuals in the history of mankind who have caused more damage to our species than Bill Gates did. He ought to be shot in the face and forced to apologize to the person who shot him.
Wait... maybe that was Dick...
What would've been the alternative if Gates didn't do what he did? Either it would be chaos in the marketplace with different incompatible and expensive computers or Apple would have a monopoly and would be selling $3000 computers to this day, both of which are way worse than today. Microsoft licensing DOS to Compaq's IBM clones was the biggest reason that computers are as cheap and affordable as they are today. Even Linux became popular because of inexpensive x86 machines. Imagine having to buy a Apple machine with a compulsory Apple tax to run Linux on.
This space for rent.
Not an uncommon behavior. Apple stole the gui idea from Tandy I believe. If we are going to demonize MS for stealing ideas then we better start supporting copyrights and patents - something that most /. (or at least the vocal ones) do not support. MS also got sued for this theft, though they won. I believe the judges ruling was you can't sue based on a look/feel.
BTW I still stand behind the principle that having IE with Windows is not anti-competative. If that were the case then Red Hat, Apple OS, and others would be anti-competative for having an browser pre-installed in their systems. When I installed Red Hat it had FireFox (but did not have IE). When I saw an apple demo laptop it had Safari & FireFox but not Opera or IE. Also, I think car companies are anti-competative because they come bundled with radios, heaters, air conditioners, locks and trunks - which are all convenience items in cars. On a side note I use FireFox, not IE. I use IE for websites that require it (OWA) and to d/l FireFox on a fresh install.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Maybe, just possibly, because people were worried, and therefore monitored what MS was doing, and made sure MS wasn't allowed to leverage their desktop monopoly advantage?
Not at all.
Not even slightly.
Microsoft has been leveraging the hell out of the desktop and (more importantly) corporate monopoly status to try and push people to use Microsoft technologies on the internet.
It's not because people were worried that they've not been able to establish a stranglehold - it's that there is real competition and the cost to use alternative solution is now so low, even from a time to build perspective.
We should all be worried as hell about what Microsoft is up to, but we should not make the mistake of not understanding what kinds of things will build Microsoft true monopolies. Happily Microsoft is seemingly short on vision these days and so there has not been as much danger.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
lol. Slashdot has always been like this. The mainstream media noticed us and ignored us years ago.
I've noticed a lot of posters relatively recently that are popping up and basically saying "linux is not ready yet, until you plug it in and it 'just works' it won't be ready", either implying Windows does "just work" or explicitly stating it. I know no computer does that, there's niggles in everything, but I seem to hear that mantra more often than I ever did.
Maybe you havn't been paying attention to them, but they're there.
There are a lot of pro-MS postings, I've done them myself, but they tend to be more objective against trolls saying Linux is perfect at everything and Windows couldn't possibly be any good. Windows is a perfectly usable OS, I just consider Linux to be architecturally better and has the potential to be significantly better.
So what you're saying is that society needs much harsher punishments for such behavior as a counter-incentive?
Do you realized how silly this sounds? The whole point of monopoly law is that things that are legal most of the time are no longer legal when you have monopoly power. That is because when you reach a certain point, you can do things which make it impossible for any competitor to emerge, at which point you can charge whatever you like.
So yes, they are doing things which would be legal if they weren't a monopoly. The fact remains that they are a monopoly (according to a trial) and can no longer do those things.
Aside from that, I hate the current attitude that exists in the US that it only matters what is legal, not what is ethical. If the large banks had acted according to what is ethical, not what is legal, we wouldn't be in the financial crisis we're in. At what point did we as a country decide it was OK to screw over anybody you wanted, as long as you could justify it legally?
Check out DRM-free movies at http://www.bside.com
Mostly because I've used more Windows boxes in the last 15 years I find issues far easier to diagnose with a Windows box than a Mac. Apple do tend to hide an awful lot of things, which for the most part normal users don't need, so diagnosing issues can be more problematic. Apple are just as bad as MS, for example I can plug in my iphone into a Windows box and browse using Explorer to retrieve the pictures from the phone. On a Mac I can't use finder (or at least it is non-obvious) to do the same I have to use itunes. So realistically it depends on what you want to achieve as to which is the best tool for that task. Zealotry for any one platform is pointless, because as Mr Wall say's there's more than one way to do it, choose an appropiate tool for the job at hand. The 'just works' moniker is only mostly true, try for example adding networked 'host based' printers if you want some fun.
I also believe that like most property, it can be made freely available.
A few questions: Freely available to whom? Everyone? On whose conditions? What kinds of property, besides intellectual, can/should be made freely available?
The reason Bill Gates made so much money in PCs is quite simple: He realized the market was made up of tons of folks that can't/won't learn how the PC works and just wanted to do the least amount possible to get their program to run. I have been working PC repair since the days of Win3.1 and I can count the number of times I've HAD to use CLI in Windows to fix a problem with one hand with fingers left over. Bill Gates made sure that EVERYTHING had a GUI, from the most basic app to the most complex. He made sure that instead of CLI all a user had to deal with was checkboxes, radio buttons, textboxes, etc.
This is why I strongly agree with the CEO of Red Hat that questioned Linux on the desktop although I think he was trying to gloss over the real problem with it. The problem with Linux is all the big corps spending good money on Linux are spending it for SERVER and not desktop roles. And all the major Linux developers are highly intelligent hackers to whom CLI is like home. To these groups and these developers GUI is simply a waster of resources and time. They can get more done faster and with less resources by simply opening bash and typing what they want the machine to do. And that is just fine, and why I say Linux will probably completely slaughter everyone else(including MSFT) in the server market.
But this approach will NOT work on the desktop. To get Linux to work on the desktop Linux will have to make a 180 degree shift away from its current position, which I don't see happening. CLI will have to be all but abandoned, because no matter how easy a geek thinks CLI is 99% of the desktop users will NEVER use CLI and it is in fact a deal breaker. Linux would have to abandon CLI in favor of all the GUI interfaces like those that Windows has in abundance. GUI interfaces, wizards, everything will have to be "clicky clicky" and the simple fact is most developers and IT guys HATE that. They hate the fact that the GUI robs them of power just as much as the users hate that the CLI is too strange and requires arcane Unix commands which they have NO desire to learn.
This is why I don't foresee Windows being replaced on the desktop, especially with the high cost of developing an OS for the complicated multi CPU, bazillions of strange PCI cards, and tons of funky mobos that is the AMD/Intel desktop/Notebook market. Apple is simply too expensive and they like it that way, as the margins are higher in the boutique market niche that they have, and Linux is ruled by developers and companies that care more about resources and speed than they do about the end user experience. The billions it would take to completely retool Linux from the ground up to be completely GUI based is just money not well spent. The server market has higher margins, better and more educated customers, and juicier support contracts. It simply isn't in the likes of Novell, Red Hat, etc best interest to spend the kind of cash required to make Linux a GUI based desktop.
Sadly the one company that I have seen really trying to make it work in a Windows based world, Xandros, with their buying of Click N' Run(which is a much nicer experience to a Windows user than Synaptic) and buying the protocols from MSFT so they can connect to AD and Exchange, gets flamed to the nine hells for having to deal with MSFT. But MSFT rules the business and if your gear can't play nice with AD and Exchange you can give it up. Even Canonical has gotten into the server business with Ubuntu Server and I wouldn't be surprised if that is where the company spends most of its resources in the future. It is just a better business to be in. But unless there is a fundamental change away from CLI to GUI I just don't see MSFT ever having to worry about giving up their desktop crown. And while I believe in the free markets and would love to see competition bring some sanity to MSFT I just don't see that happening. The culture built up around Linux likes the way it is now and has no desire to change to
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
All of it (intellectual property), should eventually be made free, after the creators have had a chance to profit off it for a reasonable time.
Wait, that's what Copyright says. Damnit.
We just lost 'reasonable' somewhere along the line.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Yep.
Vista installation:
Insert disk. Enter a little information. Done everything works. IT could see and store my cameras images, print, installed the correct video driver, recognized my monitor, found my network, all USB devices.
everything.
This same machine I tried Ubuntu, and it would not see my printers or the wireless network.
I GOT them to work, but it took another 30 minutes. Not a long time, but it didn't 'Just Work'.
Yes, I have Linux experience. Starting with Slackware 1.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
14 years. That's what we considered reasonable before Disney perverted the system.
God is imaginary
But this approach will NOT work on the desktop. To get Linux to work on the desktop Linux will have to make a 180 degree shift away from its current position, which I don't see happening.
Except it is happening. Try installing a modern Linux distribution, especially a user-friendly one. It will default to runlevel 4 and Gnome, which means you never see a command line unless you go looking for it. Gnome's menu system makes Windows look very complicated by comparison. I'm not a Gnome fan because it's *too* simple for me, but many people (particularly the audience you're targeting) love it.
Linux would have to abandon CLI in favor of all the GUI interfaces like those that Windows has in abundance. GUI interfaces, wizards, everything will have to be "clicky clicky" and the simple fact is most developers and IT guys HATE that. They hate the fact that the GUI robs them of power just as much as the users hate that the CLI is too strange and requires arcane Unix commands which they have NO desire to learn.
False dichotomy. There's no reason why one can't develop a good application that has a command line interface as well as a GUI. And while many Linux folks are CLI gurus, that's becoming an anachronistic stereotype; many Linux users these days prefer the GUI. Not to mention which, many developers have the goal of crushing MSFT (likely or not), so they're attempting to make Linux easier. Additionally, even the most ardent CLI guy has a wife, grandma, sister, cousin, neighbor, etc. who's constantly asking for computer help; if he wants to switch them to linux (and he does), he knows it's going to have to be stupid simple.
Seriously, most people use the internet and create documents. It's not hard to set up Linux with firefox and OpenOffice on Gnome. At that point, the Linux experience ain't much different from Windows.
To get Linux to work on the desktop Linux will have to make a 180 degree shift away from its current position, which I don't see happening. CLI will have to be all but abandoned, because no matter how easy a geek thinks CLI is 99% of the desktop users will NEVER use CLI and it is in fact a deal breaker.
What, by its existence? Windows has a CLI, too. It's called CMD -- there's a new one, too, called PowerShell. OS X even has Bash now. And people certainly used DOS when it was all that was there.
GUI interfaces, wizards, everything will have to be "clicky clicky" and the simple fact is most developers and IT guys HATE that.
It doesn't matter -- the two are not mutually exclusive. What I hate is when "clicky clicky" is the only option.
Have you ever fired up a modern distro, like Ubuntu? It is possible to use it without once opening up the commandline, except perhaps to copy and paste some commands -- and I think even people paranoid of the commandline know how to copy and paste.
Sadly the one company that I have seen really trying to make it work in a Windows based world, Xandros, with their buying of Click N' Run(which is a much nicer experience to a Windows user than Synaptic)
Could you be specific about what makes it better? I've always found Synaptic to be a better user experience, even for Windows People, because at the very least, it is safer than downloading random EXEs from the Internet.
gets flamed to the nine hells for having to deal with MSFT.
This is the Internet. Everyone gets flamed. For everything.
I'm going to say that Linux actually has a better GUI, in many respects, than its competition. Apple is a close enough second that I can see why people would prefer it, as a matter of taste. I really don't understand why people would prefer Windows, all other things being equal.
But they aren't. You identified the real problem, here:
MSFT rules the business and if your gear can't play nice with AD and Exchange you can give it up.
Exchange is just part of the massive lock-in that Windows generates -- all the things that have been built on the Windows platform over-the-years. Accountants are on Windows because of Quickbooks. Graphic designers are on Windows because of Photoshop. Gamers are on Windows because of Half-Life 2 -- I mean, Crysis -- I mean, Bioshock 2 -- insert game of the week here.
Linux has to be better than Windows in many ways before someone is willing to switch. And emulating Windows (better AD integration, for example) is important, but not nearly as important as developing the things that truly differentiate us.
And yes, one of those is the CLI. And yes, it is under active development -- just a month ago or so, I installed a set of scripts which adds a git status into my command prompt. Just yesterday, I wrote a new alias for a common (longer) command I often run.
But it has to be one of the oldest bits of FUD that you somehow can't use Linux without using the commandline, or that a UNIX commandline somehow precludes a decent GUI. The existence of OS X pretty much invalidates your whole argument.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
When Win3.1 came out in '92, I had been repairing Macintosh 128's, 512's, and SE's for four years. I can count the number of times I had to use a CLI to do that with no hands. And still have an appendage left to play with.
While Bill may have made that happen for the Windows product line, it's well documented that the idea behind it wasn't his innovation. I'm not arguing that Gates isn't a 'genius' but that you're misattributing the nature of his genius. He's demonstrated over the past 25 years that his talent is not software design or product innovation. Bill is a capitalist genius, a master of the corporate trade, a captain of industry. And you don't accomplish that without testing the rules. And as a result, other people apply the labels monopolist, son of a bitch, and even thief.
I can see the fnords!
Just to point out that having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing a monopoly is illegal... and Microsoft have been found guilty of abusing their monopoly... twice.
In a car you can have the manufacturer add a tape player, cd player, in addition to the AM/FM radio. In computers, the manufacturer of the pc was prevented contractually from adding other browsers to the machines they were sending out.
Two things for that: 1) Don't sign a contract and do business with the company 2) Sell a different computer with only the other OS (companies do this all the time..the fact that Dell did not is their choice, but if other companies could do it so could Dell) 3) Even if this is anti-competative, what does it have to do with IE? Thats a totally different subject. I could see the anti-competative argument of MS "forcing" companies to only sell MS products (though "force" is subjective), but the IE bundled totally loses the argument with me.
An Illegal Monopoly prevents these 3 things from happening if you want to stay in business.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Since you didn't provide any sources I have no idea if this history is correct or not. If it's true somebody stole a paper tape. Regardless of what you think of copyright, that was clearly a theft and Gates had every right to be upset.
It's not surprising that an unreleased software program was buggy and who knows how many bugs were introduced when it was "fixed" by the thieves.
Of course, MS produced a number of other basics.
If he really did use Harvard's computer, so what? He must of had some cooperation from the Harvard staff because computers in those days weren't just sitting in unlocked rooms.
Like any movie "based on" true events it would be dramatized to some degree with some stuff either inflated, ignored etc but the overall story is very believable. The one line at the end which sums up a lot for me is in Steve Job's office after he found out Bill Gates shafted him.
Jobs "But our OS is better"
Gates "It doesn't matter"
I do think it shows the good and bad in all the main players quite fairly. They both had drive to make a lot of cash in computers and chose different ways to do it. They were both ruthless in their ambitions. They both shafted lots of people along the way to get their goals. They both leave a mixed legacy behind them.
Removing IE has nothing to do with it, and all of these mod points were wasted. At the time, web browsers were add-on features which cost money, and MS gave away IE for free to gain market share. There was no problem with that either, if a company wants to make a product and give it away fine.
The problem is bundling a freebie in with a market-dominating product, in order to bury the freebie's competition. What if your telephone company gave away newspapers with DSL? Your newspaper company would crap buckets. What happens when the paper company goes under and the telephone company never updates its paper? Everyone gets it in the butt. Surprisingly, some people have a problem with this.
Freely available to whom? Everyone? On whose conditions?
Up to the owner.
What kinds of property, besides intellectual, can/should be made freely available?
I never said "should". You can give away almost anything you own.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
"Technically, it was stolen, but since he was one of the people that had paid for one and it was a year late, he could equally argue that he merely enforced some of the terms of the deal (it was still a year late and bug ridden, but he wrote that off once he finally got the copy he paid for)."
Try that argument on a judge. Theft is not a legal remedy for a contract dispute.
"When you get a bank employee to 'help' you that way, it's called an "inside job"."
What a phony analogy. Most universities allow students to access computers and don't consider such access as theft even if formal permission hasn't been granted.