Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Nixes Lax Policy, Hardens Antitrust Enforcement
eldavojohn writes "A policy from the Bush era seen as a hurdle to the government prosecuting companies under antitrust laws has been withdrawn by Obama's Department of Justice. From the article: 'The DOJ's Antitrust Division has withdrawn a September report that "raised too many hurdles to government antitrust enforcement and favored extreme caution" toward antitrust enforcement action, the DOJ said. The change in policy could mean that the department looks harder at the actions of technology vendors such as Google, Oracle and IBM, as detractors have raised antitrust concerns about all three in recent months.' You may recall that Google has come under some antitrust scrutiny recently and the pressure may have just gotten a little more intense."
I remember gobs of people complaining about letting businesses get to be "too big to fail" back when the last administration started the process of bailing out financial companies. I'm curious as to just how many of those same folks will be showing up lauding this move -- and of those who don't, how they expect to prevent businesses from growing that large without regulatory action.
I don't really get why Apple, Google or IBM would get any anti-trust charges. Apple now has made iTunes DRM free, uses open (if not patented) standards for audio codecs, etc. Apple isn't trying to be abusive in the market unlike MS. The iPhone, while closed, could use a bit of opening but I still don't see it being a monopoly, sure, the restrictions are bad, but its not like you can't get an Android, Symbian, Windows Mobile or Blackberry device and get about the same applications/experience.
Google isn't abusive either, sure they have expanded rapidly, but they haven't been destroying the competition. Now if they redirected all searches of Yahoo to "Did you mean Google?" sure, but not presently.
IBM has also opened up in recent years to fully embracing OSS. Sure, soem things are proprietary, but in 2009 IBM isn't a monopoly like back in the '70s and '80s.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Because I should be able to use the Windows Kernel with X, the Windows API on Linux, and Office on Free BSD. If the same company owns all of these products (and has near monopolies on all of them) there is no room for any competition.
The kernel, office software, and window manager/X-equivalent components should be compatible with alternatives. That would be called competition. What we have now is called a monopoly.
Um, no. The government should use open source for a few reasons A) Its not supporting any company, they can do all patches, security, upgrades, etc, in-house, this increases security because they are the only ones doing it so they can audit their own code. B) Throughout many studies, OSS has been found to be more secure C) Open source is cheaper, less tax dollars wasted D) Open source allows for smoother upgrades when the time comes because the code is there to compare different versions
I should be allowed to return any bundled software that cost the OEM money for little to no hassle and receive a refund if the OEM does not make it an option to have no operating system on the computer. This is common sense and prevents people who do not want to support a company from inadvertently lining their pockets. Plus, if you aren't going to use it, why pay for it?
Cross platform teaching just makes sense in today's world. The student who knows only OS X will be possibly lost if they end up in a job that is Windows only. The student who knows only Windows will be lost if they have to work with OS X or Linux. By supporting cross-platform or mixed-platform technologies, students have a much better knowledge of computers not Windows, or OS X or even just Linux. Similarly all programming languages should be done in a platform independent language such as Python, Java, etc. Not a language or psudo-language that is locked into a certain platform.
I don't think anyone can rationally say that the DMCA is a good thing. All it has done is increase monopolies, lawsuits, and made businesses hesitant to develop any "intellectual" property in the USA. Modchips, Flash Cartridges and other industries that thrive in other countries can't be legally made in the USA because in order to make them you must subvert the copyright protection.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Never before have two people worked so hard to be completely wrong while disagreeing on everything.
Kudos to you both, really. It's funny when people are this stupid.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
What really made the key difference is that Microsoft discovered political lobbying. They had never really given it much thought before the anti-trust trial, when Gates was naive enough to think the company would succeed just because of how smart he is. Faced with their eventual elimination, Gates realized that when you run a big business you have to play the game. That means gaining political favor. When Gates started his lobbying arm, he did it the way he does everything else: with full force. Now, Microsoft's lobbyist department is one of the strongest in the industry. No future president or legislator will ever again threaten them with monopoly charges. Hell, they could probably buy Google if they really played their cards right. The monopoly trial was about nothing more than politicians sending Gates a message saying "you've got to pay to play".
I really wish you were correct. If red hat was the sole provider of support contracts for operating systems and they used their reputation/massive base to exclude 3rd party support, they could be hit. Its all about being dominant and using that dominance to exclude competitors. Simply because something is theoretically possible (users could install netscape and make it default in windows 9x. It wasn't hard, I did it.) isn't enough to prevent that monopoly hearing. The judges don't care about standards, they don't care about royalty-free, they don't care about whether or not there CAN be competition, they only care about what there is. Not all judges are as idealistic as the average slashdot reader.
Other companies COULD have run wires or used ham radio to provide telephone service, but they didn't. There WERE other browsers besides IE. Most of the time, an anti-monopoly suit is brought by competition in the field that the competitor is being forced out of. If Company A didn't have the majority of the install base and a competitor would have been able to survive, then Company A is abusing a monopoly which opens them up for lawsuits. While there's a fine line between the court protecting a companies ability to make money, they will also respect when a company is unable to compete because of monopolistic practices.
if no one cares you obviously aren't abusive enough.
Bingo. There is nothing to prevent you from making a superwidget and owning 100% share of the superwidget market. The second that you start forcing competitors out of the superwidget market with something other than properly applied patents, copyright, or trademark law, then you've just abused your monopoly. If you start forcing competitors out (say by refusing to do business with companies that sell a potential competitor), then you've just opened yourself up to a lawsuit. Also, you're allowed to improve or introduce a new product line to "stop" (capitalists would call it "compete with") a competitors product. If IE had continued to be a stand-alone product or optional at install, there may not have been a case. However, if it was optional at install or stand-alone and Microsoft told HP that they would stop selling windows at OEM prices to HP if they bundled Netscape, that would have been an abuse of the monopoly.
While i know wikipedia is not a legal dictionary, its a good referance on some subjects and doesn't reference open source or most of the things you've mentioned. However, it does mention product bundling which could tie itunes and the ipod together. That could get in the way of ipod users playing zune music or the Zune Store selling ipod DRM'd music. The lack of willingness to license Freeplay to competitors could actually open Apple up to a hearing.
Also, you don't even need a majority in the EU to be a monopoly, the article above says that one company had 39% market share, but if you're dominant, you can still hold a monopoly.
Summary and take-away message. If you own a dominant position in the market and you abuse that position to exclude competition, you open yourself up to a monopoly hearing. It doesn't matter what's possible, what alternatives exist, if you're open source or royalty free, but if you own a dominant position in the market and you abuse that position to exclude competition, you open yourself up to a monopoly hearing.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
Yet another automobile analogy (large cars):
I can haz a Kenworth with a Caterpillar, Detroit, or a Cummins engine.
I can haz a Peterbilt with a Caterpillar, Detroit, or a Cummins engine.
I can haz a Freightliner with a Caterpillar, Detroit, or a Cummins engine.
I can haz a Mack with a Caterpillar, Detroit, Cummins, OR a Mack engine.
Stepping down to the smaller, cheaper modes of transportation,
I can haz a Ford Taurus with a 4 cyl, 6 cyl, or even an 8 cyl engine, automatic or 5 speed, with a variety of rearends. I can even have a GM or Chrysler engine under the hood, if I choose to invest the time and/or money to do so.
What gives Microsoft the right to say what I may or may not install on their operating system? What gives them the right to say that I CANNOT use their API's, or their file system, or their office suite on Linux, OS2, Solaris, or whatever I CHOOSE?
MS never had the right to put a string into Windows that checked fro MS-DOS, then refused to install if the DOS was from some other company.
It's far past time to break the monopoly. AT&T was probably the most benevolent monopoly in American history, and it was broken up. Microsoft's breakup is long overdue.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
What entitles you to other people's work on terms of your choosing?
Microsoft is a public corporation with high revenues and taxes, and a monopoly, and as such exerts an undue influence over the market and in fact the government. As a corporation it should not be permitted to exist at all unless there is a benefit to the public. Microsoft has unlawfully exerted its monopoly status (which it has only been able to gain due to copyright law) to establish undue influence over the market and something must be done to prevent them from continuing to press their unfair advantage.
Something you really need to keep in mind here is that Microsoft has no natural right to exist. If corporations do not serve the people, then why permit them to exist? Microsoft has arguably done more to hold computing back than any other "entity". Why not get a little something back? You act like Microsoft has had nothing from us all this time, and that is patently false.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So one has to specifically state that they are going to pay for things now? Is it not implied that if I want goods or services that I pay for them? Is this not why there are exceptions (open source, freeware, shareware, etc) to prove the rule (pay for what you use)?
No, jcr is just being a tool as usual.
Giving the power solely to a corporation is not a good idea. Splitting MS into distinct parts is a good idea. They used intimidation and underhanded tactics to procure most of the products they ship and to gain the market share they have, so it's quite reasonable to enforce the anti-trust against MS... Anyone who disputes this should take it up with the DOJ in the US.