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"A policy from the Bush era seen as a hurdle to the government prosecuting companies under antitrust laws has been withdrawn by Obama's Department of Justice. From the article: 'The DOJ's Antitrust Division has withdrawn a September report that "raised too many hurdles to government antitrust enforcement and favored extreme caution" toward antitrust enforcement action, the DOJ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

Comments

Neat

[Stormwatch]

Can we finally have Microsoft cut in two now, please?

Re:Neat

[evolx10]

Microsoft is like the broom from that Disney thing that mickey mousekinson chopped up with an axe, Microsoft must be burnt in a plasma furnace to remove all essence of suck.

Re:Neat

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Neat

[Anonymous Coward]

What entitles you to other people's work on terms of your choosing?

What doesn't?

The law? That cuts both ways.

Re:Neat

[Captain Splendid]

What entitles you to other people's work on terms of your choosing?

That's not what he said and you know it. Don't be an ass.

Re:Neat

[bluefoxlucid]

Of course not. He directly listed his terms and said that's how it should be; the GP just questioned him on the basic assumption implied by that.

Re:Neat

[Runaway1956]

Cut in two? Not enough. The browser needs to go, simple as that. DirectX needs to be torn out, and put into competition against things like OpenGL. The office suite needs to be ripped out of the hands of the operating system people, and any future collusion absolutely prohibited. Take out the silly chat program, and make it earn it's own way. Turn Microsoft's portfolio into a damned paper doll. Competition might actually IMPROVE the various products. Those that don't improve can die out and be trashed. It isn't entirely a matter of making "Microsoft" competitive, but making each of Microsoft's products competitive.

Re:Neat

[Miseph]

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.

Re:Neat

[Thinboy00]

He implied he'd be willing to pay a reasonable price for the individual components. Presumably, if the components were individualized, other people would also be willing to pay whatever they see as reasonable, and if MS-I, MS-II, and/or MS-III couldn't figure that out, they'd go out of business.

Re:Neat

[kklein]

I have been arguing for this for 10 years (I'm assuming the OP means breaking it into separate OS application companies). Here's why it would be good for everyone, including MS:

1. Windows would get better. Without having to be part of such a large organization with such a large corporate line to toe, they could work smaller/faster/smarter, like Apple does. Yes, Apple makes applications as well, but they aren't comparable to the high stakes involved with Office. Also, by losing their biggest actual benefit (the tight integration with Office), they will have to compete more on features, usability, and security--which will be good for everyone.
2. It would be good for Office. By being cut loose, the application company would no longer have to put the Windows platform, branding, and goofy UI idea du jour ahead of the main goal: making the best office suite better. Suddenly, I think we could expect the infuriating hobbles put on the Mac version of the product (Why no VB support? Why can I only see 5 Styles in the style list? Why can't it look more like Pages, which looks more like Word 2003?) to disappear, and--even better--the introduction of a native Linux version.
3. This would be good for Apple. Suddenly, their platform, which is already very good, gets better, because of the better, wholehearted (as opposed to half-assed) support from the application company.
4. This would be good for Linux. Suddenly, with Windows playing on an even field, and a native Office, I think we'd see a lot of companies and even more tech-savvy home users move (I'd move off the Mac in such a case, I think). With the influx of users would come more development cash, opportunities, and interest. Linux would not only become more viable due to the things MS does, but because of the increased attention, Linux could really grow and mature.
5. This would be good for every software company in the world. Suddenly you're not competing with the MS Windows/Office/EverythingElse juggernaut; you're competing with individual products. You have a shot!

I don't really hate MS products. In fact, I really like Office. With the exception of PPT, nothing really has all the features and ease-of-use Office has (Keynote beats PPT soundly, though). A lot of times I have tried to move off of Office out of principle (or because of the frustrating UI of Word on the Mac--but it's still better than Office 2007!), but I always end up back, because I always find that there's something it does that nothing else does (or, rather, does right--tables in Word are the biggie).

I also liked Windows, a lot, through the Win2k/XP years. I only recently switched back to the Mac, due to the horrid mess Vista is (I really don't think 7 is much of an improvement--although it does seem a little better, from playing with the beta for a few hours). I would like to see all that talent at MS put to better use making a better product. I just don't think that it can be done with the company so big. The bigger a company is, the less each individual does--partly due to laziness/anonymity (not really that big a problem, I don't thing--most people like doing a good job), partly due to lack of clear focus. Too many cooks.

So there you go, Mr. AC. Those are the reasons why cutting MS in two would be good, exactly.

Re:Neat

[Runaway1956]

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.

Re:Neat

[dhavleak]

The browser needs to go, simple as that.

Why does the browser need to go?
What is preventing you from using a different browser?

DirectX needs to be torn out, and put into competition against things like OpenGL.

What prevents an OEM from providing Open GL drivers on Windows?
What is to say that without DirectX we would have seen Open GL v3.x?

The office suite needs to be ripped out of the hands of the operating system people, and any future collusion absolutely prohibited.

What is the collusion of which you speak?
What synergy do you see between Office and Windows, that disadvantages say Open Office?

Take out the silly chat program, and make it earn it's own way.

I assume you mean MSN messenger? Check out the Win7 RC -- already done.

Turn Microsoft's portfolio into a damned paper doll. Competition might actually IMPROVE the various products.

Because you care about improving things, right? Yeah, I totally got that from your post.

Re:Neat

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Neat

[Trepidity]

They have repeatedly and willfully violated the laws of multiple countries, have been fined multiple billions of dollars, and that has not deterred them as they continue to violate those laws. That means breaking them up into multiple competing companies, with the products decoupled from each other, is the only real remaining remedy with teeth.

Re:Neat

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one of the more absurd analogies I've seen in the last year or so.

Ok. Sorry. I forgot that you aren't going to cut me slack and try to understand what I'm saying, instead you are going to axiomatically deflect my arguments. Let me break it down for you: hypothetical car monopoly A could install a technical measure to prevent CDs that were not purchased from A from playing. Your argument

What entitles you to other people's work on terms of your choosing?

applies equally well in this situation. I.e., you are saying that A's capacity to prevent CDs purchased from competitors (that is, "might") makes it ok (i.e., "makes it right"). Your notion that each individual has the right to enter into any deal they wish allows for abuses.* In fact, it is so well recognized that laws, under the name "antitrust" were written. As an exercise for the reader, you can look up the abuses committed in the early 20th century.

Perhaps you can argue that CD's and cars are disparately different items, and subject to monopoly "bundling" protections, whereas two more closely related things such as the kernel and window manager can be "bundled." This would be a valid argument. In fact, decisions have been made that web browsers and OS's cannot be bundled; whether window managers and OS's can be bundled is a question for the courtroom. I know which side I stand, however.

*This idea you have stated is the bedrock of free market capitalism. It works very well in perfect competition. Notice, however, that not all markets admit perfect competition. In these cases, free market rules do not apply. Your morality (entering freely into agreements, etc.) may work well on the scale of 10 to 20 people. However, it does not work well with hundreds of millions of people. Additional effects come into play, and such simple rules, unfortunately, do not cut it.

I didn't say anything at all along the lines of "might makes right".

It terrifies me that you Ayn Rand people don't even understand your own philosophy.

Re:Neat

[Captain Splendid]

It's exactly what he asked for, and you know it.

Sweet! You're a parser who loves to ignore context. You guys almost make furries look good.

That's advice you would do well to follow.

Barking up the wrong tree there, you hideous freak.

Re:Neat

[Runaway1956]

Obviously, there is something about "monopoly" and "unfair trade practice" that you fail to understand. MS attempts to present the world with a monolithic operating system, with such claims as "the browser is an integral part of the OS", thereby using that monolithic structure to crush competition.

If, A: you don't understand that, you should read history outside of MS approved sources.

If, B: you are just trolling as an MS fanboi, no amount of explanation is going to change your mind

If, C: you really WOULD like to see MS actually make constructive contributions to computer science, as opposed to just enriching it's current stockholders, you should agree with me. Breaking up Microsoft, and forcing each division to act independently, will almost certainly make each of the divisions more standards compliant. Interoperability will improve unbelievably, because IE, for instance, won't have the wealth of the other divisions to draw on. It is only that wealth, and the stubborness of MS, that has prevented IE from being standards compliant in the past.

MS Office was nothing more than a bludgeon used by MS to re-write standards in a manner difficult to copy by other office suites last year, remember? MS reps waltzed into the conference, paid off a few people, and bullied the rest into signing off on a new standard. Phhht. As a seperate corporation, they could never have pulled that off.

Maybe MS Office really IS the best office system in the world - but it should stand on it's own merits, and not rely on all the rest of the MS monopoly.

What we have today really sucks. And, because so few people can even imagine how much better things COULD BE, they think that they are happy with it.

Your sarcasm is noted. There IS NO sarcasm in my post, here or above. I do care about improving things. I am quite certain that MS only cares about lining their pockets.

Re:Neat

[scamper_22]

I still don't see the *need* to split up MS or even to pursue antitrust arguments against MS.

I'll list the main arguments below.

1. The market seems to have provided better protection.
Compared to so many other industries, the software world is remarkably open with such a low barrier to entry. I see absolutely nothing wrong with MS even using hidden APIs for its own benefit. All is fair as far as I am concerned. MS slacked on the web, Google popped up. MS's strategy of providing the software while others fought for low margins on hardware worked for a while, until people craved a tight integrated hardware solution like Apple. It's not just Microsoft. Remember how MS stuck it to those old players who tried to bundle the OS and hardware? MS changed the game by breaking that monopoly. I worked for telecoms before and everyone knew the game. Our customers would play one vendor against another. They knew not to put themselves in a position to be subservient to a monopoly.

2. Good jobs in engineering are almost always back by 'anti competitive practices'. Like it or not, that is the field we're in. We work hard on IP, that is then copied very quickly. Among the only tools we have to ensure a stable cash flow are things that many would deem 'anti-competitive', such as exclusive sales channels, vendor lockin... I've worked for companies big and small, and they all do it to the best of their ability. To those that wish for the 'good ole' days' before MS, just review your history. The big telecoms were able to be a bit open in terms of software because they had huge monopolies which could then fund some R&D. Various hardware companies killed you on on hardware costs. Let's not even get started on Asia. Japan is just one giant anti-competitive system :P I don't know about you, but I like to have a company with loads of cash flow behind me so they are stable. Why do engineers want to commit suicide as a profession... I just don't know.

Yes, I don't think 'competition' or 'benefiting society' are reasons to step into anti-trust. For one thing, what you think is good for society might not be what I think is good. I think having strong champions in industry is very important... even at the cost of a little 'anti-competitive' behavior. The free market provides plenty of competition and the barrier to entry in this industry is EXTREMELY low. This is not a government mandated monopoly like the telecom industry or anything like that.

Re:Neat

[dhavleak]

I'll take D - "none of the above" :)

you really WOULD like to see MS actually make constructive contributions to computer science, as opposed to just enriching it's current stockholders, you should agree with me.

Enriching it's shareholders requires continuously improving products (which is done through research and developement based on that research). The ribbon is a recent and visible example of that, from the product group you were referencing. (recycling electrons). You might contend that MS is up to all kinds of nefarious activities to enrich it's shareholders. There's many things to be said about that. First, it's debatable. Second, if they break the law in anyway, there are harsher penalties for that - breaking up the company is pretty mild. Third, nefarious activities aren't the sole domain of very large companies, so breaking up MS isn't the solution to that either. And finally, you still haven't pointed out this synergy between Office and Windows that you're referring to..

Interoperability will improve unbelievably, because IE, for instance, won't have the wealth of the other divisions to draw on.

But any modern OS is incomplete without a browser. If you were to break up the company, you would have to include the browser in the OS unit.

It is only that wealth, and the stubborness of MS, that has prevented IE from being standards compliant in the past.

I would contend that it's a lack of competition that caused IE's stagnation and lack of standards compliance. After a few years of good, solid competition from FF, IE's vitality is finally getting restored. The rest of the industry let us down by not competing with IE. Mozilla righted things with FF.

MS reps waltzed into the conference, paid off a few people, and bullied the rest into signing off on a new standard. Phhht. As a seperate corporation, they could never have pulled that off.

Nothing related to OOXML and ODF is not politicized. Your version of events isn't neutral either. If there was indeed bribing involved, how do we know that Office (as an independant company) would not have large enough coffers to do the bribing on it's own? Their revenues & profits are on the same scale as Windows revenues and profits. They don't need any funding from the OS division.

but it should stand on it's own merits, and not rely on all the rest of the MS monopoly.

And it does. I honestly have no idea about the 'assistance' the office team gets from the rest of MS, that you're referring to.

What we have today really sucks. And, because so few people can even imagine how much better things COULD BE, they think that they are happy with it.

What we imagine (in terms of a better world, software-wise) is hardly justification for breaking up MS. For instance, if Apple open sourced all it's software, and it's hardware designs, and released all it's patents into the public domain, of course things could be better. But that's not a good enough reason to force them to do that -- they are completely justified in following the business model they have today.

Re:Neat

[chromas]

I think a better comparison would be a piece of hardware that actually comes in the car--like the actual CD player--instead of CDs because nothing in Windows stops me from loading and running other software. I can change the CD player or other components in my car all I want. I can change some components in Windows, too; for example, I can replace the Explorer shell with KDE4 or Litestep.

I don't have the source for Windows so some things I would have to reverse-engineer or hack. I've not purchased a new car before but I assume they don't come with schematic diagrams.

I don't think Microsoft should have to make its products modular but it also shouldn't be able to do anything about people hacking it. Also, Ford doesn't make CD players or CDs.

Re:Neat

[Runaway1956]

"Enriching it's shareholders requires " only that sales are made. FUD makes a large number of sales.

"But any modern OS is incomplete without a browser. If you were to break up the company, you would have to include the browser in the OS unit." Wrong. Redhat doesn't make a browser, nor does Suse, Debian, or any of the other Linux OS's. A web browser is not necessary for an operating system to operate, period. There are any number of methods by which MS could offer a CHOICE of browsers, including the method used by Ubuntu: package half a dozen or more on the OS installation CD, and let the user CHOOSE which, if any, he wants.

"I would contend that it's a lack of competition that caused IE's stagnation and lack of standards compliance. " Good - you do admit that in one instance, at least, what's been good for MS has not been good for the advancement of computer sciences. Stockholders were quite happy with a substandard browser, and only opensource competition offered the stimulation to improve.

MS Office was designed and built to integrate itself into the operating system, much as the web browser does. The people with the source code to the operating system KNEW how to make it fit like a hand into a glove. Obfuscation, as much as anything, defeated some of the office suites of yesteryear. Without the insider information available to MS Office developers, WordPerfect and others were left out in the cold. Added to that was the common FUD put out by Microsoft, pressuring businesses go by MS Office to ensure "support" by MS.

And finally, justification for breaking up ANY company? It is sufficient to demonstrate that society is likely to benefit. All business exists at the sufferance of government. When government decided that hemp should be illegal in this country, all industries related to hemp went out of business. The government unilaterally decided the nation would be a better place without hemp, and that was it.

If/when the government decides that this nation would be better off without a monopolistic giant that abuses the computer sciences, microsoft will be history. No further justification needed, and no apologies to any stockholders.

Re:Neat

[sortius_nod]

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.

Re:Neat

[Cyberax]

"Pray tell, what are you restricted from installing on your Windows by Microsoft, exactly?"

Unsigned drivers on x64 Windows (including OpenSource drivers which I help to develop).

"Last I checked, neither Samba nor WINE nor ntfs-3g were sued by Microsoft."

TomTom.

Re:Neat

[professionalfurryele]

Look it is very simple and wholly consistent with a libertarian perspective.

The government created this monopoly by intervening in the market with copyright. This was done because it was believed (and I feel rightly so, although you may not) that copyright provided a net societal gain. Now it has to deal with the side effects.

This is government intervention to fix more government intervention. I believe that society is a complex beast and that the free market requires maintenance by government. Most sane people do, even if it is only at the level of providing guys with gun to stop people killing each other over contracts. This is all that is happening here.

If you are a libertarian then your complaint aught to be with the market distortion of copyright creating natural monopolies, not with government breaking up those monopolies.

Re:Neat

[Anonymous Coward]

"I saw someone else post this as well -- am I missing something? What's the tight integration between Windows and Office?"

MS Office can and does bypass the printer driver.

It binds closer to the filesystem calls and uses API calls others cannot, making it faster.

An extreme example is WPfW: the API used was deprecated and Windows Office didn't use it and worked well. WPfW weren't told and was crap.

Re:Neat

[JAlexoi]

Why do engineers want to commit suicide as a profession... I just don't know.

And now back to reality! Most of software being developed in the world is developed for custom orders. So even if MS, Oracle and IBM disapear, "software engineers" will still be valued.(It's like saying that a cook is worthless without a restaurant.)

the barrier to entry in this industry is EXTREMELY low

Yes it IS extremely low, but players like MS make sure that the adoption is close to 0%, in certain areas. That is the main problem.

Good jobs in engineering are almost always back by 'anti competitive practices'.

That is a load of bullshit! I work in a quite large company, that is one of the leaders in it's market, however the competition is extremely fierce. And I do understand clients are actually benefiting. I am pushed a lot to bring value and I like it.
Oh, and BTW, any "Good job" in your post is the 1980's programmer's job or when programmers were considered gods of the tech world and asking them to do something was like praying and hoping of returns. I would never call that lazy-ass job as good.
If you want that kind of job, please become an CS researcher.
And BTW, the company where I work, is basically a competitor of Microsoft in certain niches, so I know how they push the clients to agree to their terms.

What about the root of all evil, Microsoft?

[kurt555gs]

Now would be a good time to break them up, as should have been done before. Why wont it happen? Because hoards of Microsoft lawyers now have jobs with the Obama administration.

End result? , lets go after anyone Microsoft doesn't like, as in Google.

Please notice that I did not use "M$" in the body of this post. The use of "M$" inflaes the paid Microsoft shills that seem to hang out here.

Re:What about the root of all evil, Microsoft?

[Darkness404]

...And what good would breaking up MS do? What needs to happen is A) Laws allowing you to return bundled software for free for a refund with no hassle B) Enforcing open standards, and open source in government C) requiring that technology education for public high schools be platform independent D) Repeal the DMCA so DRM can be broken

If you take these sane steps, MS will wither, on the other hand breaking up MS is A) Anti-capitalism and B) Won't work to stop its monopoly, only create smaller ones.

Re:What about the root of all evil, Microsoft?

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:What about the root of all evil, Microsoft?

[644bd346996]

Microsoft would had never had the money to launch the XBox as a successful invasion of the video game market if it were not for the combined cash cow monopolies of Windows and Office. (And ironically, if they hadn't been able to move in on the video game market at that time, then the Halo series would have stayed on the Mac platform.)

Breaking up Microsoft might not be worth the effort today, but then again, having a natural monopoly has never been the (legal) issue. It's abusing that monopoly to take over other markets that is illegal, and it certainly is necessary to make sure that Microsoft can't continue that pattern.

Re:What about the root of all evil, Microsoft?

[flyingsquid]

I don't really get why Apple, Google or IBM would get any anti-trust charges.

Don't be silly, of *course* Google is a monopoly! When people google, who do they use? Google. Google has a complete monopoly when it comes to googling. That's why we have to split the company in two. I propose the creation of two companies, "Go" and "Ogle". Or perhaps "Goo" and "Gle", or even "G" and "Oogle". Anyhow you get my point.

Re:What about the root of all evil, Microsoft?

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:What about the root of all evil, Microsoft?

[SL Baur]

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.

True. Search for "search engines" on Google. The first link in the results is a news article about the Wolfram Alpha. In results further down, live.com is listed ahead of google.com. When I click on the "list of search engines" link at the top, I get a page that lists yahoo.com, but *does not* list google.com.

Seems reasonable.

Re:What about the root of all evil, Microsoft?

[pete6677]

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".

Re:What about the root of all evil, Microsoft?

[SL Baur]

Heh. I should have continued. A similar search on live.com yields *no* results for Google. None.

Oh really?

Re:What about the root of all evil, Microsoft?

[TinBromide]

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. (I'll put this again at the end in case people miss it)

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.

Re:What about the root of all evil, Microsoft?

[Mattazuma]

They didn't "abuse" their monopoly power making the XBox. Using money earned in their monopoly business to enter another, unrelated market is not an anti-trust violation. In order for there to be a violation they would have to directly use their monopoly to take over another market. For example, requiring the use of Microsoft mice or keyboards in order to run Windows would be an anti-trust violation.

Re:What about the root of all evil, Microsoft?

[The_Quinn]

That is why we need the separation of State and Economics, just as we have the separation of Church and State.

The only way to avoid the purchasing of government favoritism is to eliminate the power of the government to grant favors.

Enough of "Too Big to Fail"!

[cduffy]

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.

Re:Enough of "Too Big to Fail"!

[timmarhy]

the problem is too big to fail was a bullshit notion to begin with. they just had trouble saying "old boys club".

Re:Enough of "Too Big to Fail"!

[east coast]

What do you mean "had"? This problem hasn't gone away. In fact, no one is addressing it at all. At least no one who can make a difference given the current political landscape.

Re:Why those corporations?

[WindBourne]

Because AT&T, Apple, Intel and MS pay LOTS of money to congressmen, as well as hire lots of ppl that worked in DOJ later on.

Another set of excuses for our Kleptocracy.

[tjstork]

Seriously, which one of these findings were so objectionable. Was it:

"No single test for determining whether conduct is anticompetitive such as the effects-balancing, profit-sacrifice, no-economic-sense, equally efficient competitor, or disproportionality tests works well in all cases. The Department encourages the continuing development of conduct-specific tests and safe harbors;"

or

"Remedies for conduct that is found to violate Section 2 should re-establish the opportunity for competition without unnecessarily chilling competitive practices or undermining incentives to invest and innovate;"

Monopolies aren't illegal

[BearRanger]

However exploiting them is. For those of you asking why Google and not Apple, perhaps that's why. I'd be hard pressed to say Apple has a monopoly in any of its markets anyway.

What is the government's intent in pursuing anti-trust action? If it's to make markets more competitive there are better industries to target than microchips, software and computer manufacturing. The barrier to entry for the software market is very low. In my opinion any emphasis here should be on limiting mergers and acquisitions that stifle innovation.

However if their goal is to limit the exploitation of consumers they need to revisit telecommunications. Start with the government-granted monopolies given to the cable companies. Then take a look at the oligarchy that the wireless phone market has become. AT&T may not be the "Ma Bell" of yore but they seem to be heading that way.

There's no such thing as too big to fail..

[tjstork]

Seriously, if we would have let Citibank or AIG go down the shitter, what would have happened? Let's see, we would have had a month where we lost 600,000 jobs.

Oh, jeez, we get those every month now.

TARP is hands down the dumbest bipartisan thing ever done. Right about now the House Republicans that opposed TARP are starting to look really good. TARP was a trillion dollar waste of money.

And of course, we followed that up with another trillion dollar waste of money in the stimulus. Our latest moron in chief could conceivably go and blow that on another stimulus that has 0 impact on GDP... as for some reason our retards in Washington think that we just need to get consumers borrowing more when the problem with the USA is that everyone has borrowed too much.

Makes Perfect Sense...

[Stormy Dragon]

So, on one hand, the Treasury Department is spending billions of dollars to keep massive corporations from breaking up and, on the other hand, the Justice Department will be spending billions of dollars to make sure they do.