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"A policy from the Bush era seen as a hurdle to the government prosecuting companies under antitrust laws has been withdrawn by Obama's Department of Justice. From the article: 'The DOJ's Antitrust Division has withdrawn a September report that "raised too many hurdles to government antitrust enforcement and favored extreme caution" toward antitrust enforcement action, the DOJ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.
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.
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.'"