Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DOJ Nixes Lax Policy, Hardens Antitrust Enforcement

Posted by kdawson on from the new-sheriff-in-town dept.

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"A policy from the Bush era seen as a hurdle to the government prosecuting companies under antitrust laws has been withdrawn by Obama's Department of Justice. From the article: 'The DOJ's Antitrust Division has withdrawn a September report that "raised too many hurdles to government antitrust enforcement and favored extreme caution" toward antitrust enforcement action, the DOJ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

8 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. Neat by Stormwatch · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    --
    Circumcision is child abuse.
    1. Re:Neat by Miseph · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:Neat by kklein · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Neat by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    4. Re:Neat by dhavleak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Neat by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.'"
  2. Re:What about the root of all evil, Microsoft? by 644bd346996 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:What about the root of all evil, Microsoft? by SL+Baur · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.