Slashdot Mirror
Google, Yahoo!, Apple Targeted In DoJ Antitrust Probe
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from the Washington Post:
"The Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether some of the nation's largest technology companies violated antitrust laws by negotiating the recruiting and hiring of one another's employees, according to two sources with knowledge of the review. The review, which is said to be in its preliminary stages, is focused on Google; its competitor Yahoo; Apple; and the biotech firm Genentech, among others, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing. The sources said the review includes other tech companies and is 'industry-wide.' By agreeing not to hire away top talent, the companies could be stifling competition and trying to maintain their market power unfairly, antitrust experts said. ... Obama's antitrust chief at the Justice Department, Christine Varney, has said she plans to look at the network effects of high-tech companies and how their grasp on markets has cut out competitors and hurt consumers."
By agreeing not to hire away top talent, the companies could be stifling competition and trying to maintain their market power unfairly, antitrust experts said...In 2005, Microsoft sued Google for hiring away Kai-Fu Lee...
Good. Hopefully these actions will lead to the outlawing of vaguely wide-ranging NDAs which state that employees may not work for "competitors" for X years after leaving their companies. I wish that TFA provided the list of all the companies because they didn't mention whether or not Microsoft was in the list despite their example above.
Antitrust experts say that could include wireless carriers and software operators that may be blocking certain applications from running on their networks and devices.
Let's hope so.
Why do we trust google, again?
It seems to me like there's another angle on this, from the perspective of the affected employees, not the customers/competitors.
By forming a pact that keeps an employee at company A from getting a job at any other company in the cartel, doesn't that run afoul of federal fair labor laws?
Oh my god!!! Is this happening in the US!? Quick, someone get a camera!
Seriously neither Google nor Yahoo! are anything close to a monopoly.
Nothing in this article was talking about any of the four listed companies being a monopoly. This was about collusive behavior to not recruit away talent from each other.
I used to drive a Hyundai Sonata. Whenever I took it out, I would get stares because the heap would lay down a huge black cloud of exhaust when I pressed the gas. I would occasionally think about getting it fixed, but never really got around to it. Then one day I was t-boned at an intersection. The car was totaled.
In the business world, things are much the same way. Collision is just as bad as a monopoly.
Would you have voted for BHO if you knew he was going to make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court who is pro-RIAA
Wow, way to blow completely out of proportion that article that was posted yesterday that was about a singular ruling that she made like a decade ago.
and that under BHO's administration we'd see Google, Apple come under major Antitrust scrutiny (but not Microsoft)? What are your thoughts?
Who says they aren't going after Microsoft in this probe? The four listed companies weren't an exhaustive list of everyone being probed.
"Obama's antitrust chief at the Justice Department, Christine Varney, has said she plans to look at the network effects of high-tech companies and how their grasp on markets has cut out competitors and hurt consumers."
They are investigating collusion in the labor market - in this case, the companies themselves are the consumer, and job seekers provide the service. But this has nothing to do with cutting out competitors and hurting consumers. What they are doing is collusion in a market which, though probably illegal, keeps costs down, not up.
"look at the network effects of high-tech companies and ... grasp on markets ..." is shorthand for increased government regulation, whether warranted or not. What will happen when they decide to investigate the companies that supply toilets, and find out that "only" 10 companies "dominate" the market? They may not be colluding, but OBVIOUSLY such a small number of companies id bad for the market, and hence requires regulation of their pricing to protect the consumer.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
The US Government is short of that.
Even though I own multiple Apple products I would rather see DOJ bust Apple's balls than MS. At MS doesn't dictate whose machine I can run their OS on (even though I have no Windows computers art home). As for Google, they have money, they are current at issue with various "AA" groups that have relations with people in the new guy's administration.
Besides this about restricting employee for leaving for better offers by agreeing not to see out talent from agreed upon companies. In other words, if they like you they might be willing to make a deal with a competitor so you won't be offered a reason to leave.
I still figure most of it is about getting more money
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
but I'm really sick to death of how video games for PCs are usually only available for Windows.
Can you really blame them for only wanting to develop for a platform that will actually be profitable? Yes, it does suck that there is a dearth of Linux games, but that's just the way it is. If Linux got a bigger marketshare then you might see more attention, but game companies aren't going to develop for every fringe desktop OS when it isn't going to make them anything but a negligible amount of money.
Obviously I have no proof of infringing behavior, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that MS is engaging in some anti-competitive practices in this area to shut out competing platforms from the PC gaming market.
Or *gasp* maybe it has to do with the fact that it's completely not worth their time and money to make games for an OS that constitutes less than 1% of all desktops. Considering the fact that Macs get games would clearly show that your claim is wrong since Apple is one of Microsoft's most fierce competitors.
Oh I don't know He has been doing favors for all his supporters, Like those car Dealerships whom supported him somehow manage to stay open.
But if you want to keep Diluting yourself into "hope and change" then don't mind me, go right ahead.
Oh I don't know [arstechnica.com] He has been doing favors for all his supporters, Like those car Dealerships whom supported him somehow manage to stay open.
Nice red herring, but it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that teh whole uproar over Sotomayor was based on a single ruling out of all of her years in the federal judiciary. One ruling hardly justifies being called "pro-RIAA".
But if you want to keep Diluting yourself into "hope and change" then don't mind me, go right ahead.
Except I never voted for Obama and have disagreed with almost everything he's done. Doesn't mean I won't still correct people who are spreading nonsense.
You're kidding, right? You realize that the statistics are completely against there being any political considerations in the closing of the dealerships.
Seriously neither Google nor Yahoo! are anything close to a monopoly.
Good luck trying to compete with either of them -- at any level...
Especially if you have anything of merit because they will just recruit away all your talent while having an agreement not to do so to each other.
Because that's not *anti-trust* behaviour. That's monopoly, and different. And since there's availability of other OS's, and it's possible to get a computer without Windows, then it's not a monopoly. Apple won't let non-Apple computers have OSX, and an OEM computer isn't going to take the time to make a custom Linux install to work with their hardware when they can foist support off to Microsoft by saying "that's an OS issue." Not to mention the majority of the programs that get "paid placement" or whatever are also Windows programs, which is why you can get a $400 computer. It's subsidized by Norton and whoever who want a trial of their software on it. Lose that, and there's no competitive advantage. Thus it's not MS who's abusing OEM.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
The contention is that there were no statistics. Can you link to some? When the #1 performing dealerships in the same geographic area as other poor performing dealerships is closed and the poor performers are allowed to continue operating, how does this make sense statistically?
Because that's not *anti-trust* behaviour. That's monopoly, and different.
Good luck trying to get that through the head of most Slashdotters. They are so misinformed about such topics that it's almost as laughable as when they repeat the erroneous, and contrary to established case law, claims that EULAs are nonenforceable in the US.
How is what these companies doing any different than the non compete / anti-head hunting clauses the major oil companies have been using for over four decades to limit employee loss to competitors? The way I see it this is just bluff and bluster on the DoJ's part.
... and an OEM computer isn't going to take the time to make a custom Linux install to work with their hardware when they can foist support off to Microsoft...
Uhm last time I checked there were numerous products precisely the way you describe them available. Do you know what a netbook is? If so I guess what you meant to say was "most OEM's". There's a big difference.
I am the lawn!
Would you have voted for BHO if you knew he was going to make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court who is pro-RIAA and that under BHO's administration we'd see Google, Apple come under major Antitrust scrutiny (but not Microsoft)? What are your thoughts?
Yes, yes I would. For one thing, in the world of things that truly matter, the RIAA is way down on the list. And as someone else pointed out, one pro-RIAA ruling during a judicial lifetime doesn't mean that much. As for the monopoly thing, if Google and Apple are breaking the law, they should be treated accordingly. Microsoft was already convicted of being a monopoly, and they were punishment. The punishment was completely inadequate and driven by right-wing free-market fanatics in the Bush government, but in the end that was the punishment that was levied. Unless Microsoft is doing something new that is anti-competitive, they are safe.
You are looking at the wrong statistics. The most profitable dealers have remained open. It's not about performance, it's about profitability on both ends. Those two are not necessarily tied together. You can be a poor performer and there are tons of ways to make excess additional amounts per sale to the manufacturer, and this is in fact quite common at dealerships that have lower volume of sales.
By not hiring from each other, they are dampening the wage escalation that occurs for the best or most strategic talent.
This does not hurt firms not in the cartel, it hurts their employees. It actually helps companies outside the cartel by reducing the cost to hire away talent from companies in the pact.
The contention is that there were no statistics. Can you link to some?
You want a link. To no statistics.
You're pretty much completely missing my point. Let me re-iterate: based on my experience with their past behavior (browsers), it is not outside the realm of possibility that MS is doing something to entice game developers and/or video card makers to solely develop for directX. It could very well be that directX is a better platform to design games for, and that's why most gaming companies use it, but my thought was that *gasp* maybe MS is reenforcing it's monopoly on desktops through anti-competitive behavior. Gee, that'd be a real shocker, wouldn't it? I bet you'd never expect MS to try something like that, or that they might try and use their desktop monopoly to build games for the xbox 360.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
*gasp* I use Windows because I have to. Work requires Windows, I go unemployed I'll finally be free from Windows, but I'd rather not!
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Wait, someone voted for a Browser Helper Object? I've never heard of one being elected, personally.
MLNN, if you think about it, a non-compete is a good idea, IF you happen to be in a sensitive position. If you worked for Google for a number of years and had an intimate knowledge of how their searching algorithm worked, would the brass really want you going to Yahoo with that knowledge being current? It would reduce Google's effectiveness as a company, and what's more, that's their proprietary data, which you might then pass on to another company.
How is this a troll? Sure a link pointing out one of the reasons it's a red herring would have been nice but I don't see how it's a troll.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
An industry wide probe that calls out these specific companies. Odd that.
Why bother
You mean like WolframAlpha? They can be competed with. May take some deep pocket investors and a high power altruistic talent but it happens.
Why bother
Government anti-trust law action against companies purportedly level the playing field and empowers everyone to compete equally, giving more power to consumers. However, the anti-trust laws are vague and it is hard to tell when a company has violated them. Thus, the government itself gets broad powers to interpret the laws. If the government were really interested in leveling the playing field and empowering many industry players and consumers, instead of itself, it would do something to make those laws clearer. By maintaining vague laws, the government keeps for itself the monopoly to rule on a case-by-case basis what's allowed and what's not. The government itself is guilty of violating the principles of the anti-trust laws.
I disagree! If he is so valuable to his employer that having him work for a competitor would be disastrous for the company, then he should be compensated. The best way would to give him a large enough salary so he would not be tempted to leave the company. As a second method, the company should pay his current salary if they prevent him from working for a competitor. At the very least, they should be obligated to pay the difference if his new salary is less PLUS a fixed amount more.
Nice red herring, but it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that teh whole uproar over Sotomayor was based on a single ruling out of all of her years in the federal judiciary. One ruling hardly justifies being called "pro-RIAA".
Not only that, but it wasn't even a case of the RIAA/MPAA suing an individual for file sharing. The defendants were a series of bars that were publicly showing pay-per-view boxing, and it was a pretty open-and-shut case of infringement for monetary gain. Moreover, she only awarded the plaintiff four times the damages they incurred (definitely a constitutional amount), far less than the 1,000x damages that the RIAA typically seeks. Basically, that article was pure Slashdot-tailored FUD, and it's a shame people bought into it.
Like those car Dealerships whom supported him somehow manage to stay open.
Nice conspiracy theory. Too bad the statistics don't support your claim. In short, there's a greater than 50% chance that any variances in what dealerships went under is explainable by pure chance alone.
I'm having a tough time figuring out exactly how this hurts consumers? Can anyone lay it out for me.
Why bother
It's an illegal restraint of trade under US antitrust law. It's not "monopoly", which is sell-side, it's "monopsony", which is buy-side.
Farmers classically face monopsony situations. This was much worse when most farm products moved only by rail. When there was only one buyer with a rail loading facility in an area, farmers were really screwed. That's why there are so many farmer's cooperatives in the US, and USDA efforts to control monopsonies. For what it was like before that, see "A Deal In Wheat", from 1903.
My vote will most likely not change based on any one thing that gets done, unlike your dumb ass who is trying to put a decision on a fairly trivial issue such as copyright law on the same level as genocide and world domination.
Only an idiot would change his vote based on something as trivial as this. If all you look at is how someone is going to react to this sort of shit then you're a moron. There is more than one issue and more than one level of issue and you take the whole picture into account, not one event.
Would this change my vote? Fuck no, I'm all for hiring what you would call 'pro-RIAA' lawyers (keep in mind judges ARE lawyers). Lawyers work for who pays them, they leave their morals at the door and fight for the guy holding the check. Obama can pull EVERY SINGLE ONE of the RIAA's lawyers into his cabinet. Then the president will have ALL of the good lawyers and the RIAA/MPAA will be left with second best. Sounds like a winner to me. Lawyers aren't loyal unless you're the guy holding the purse strings. These people aren't 'PRO-RIAA' they are PRO-BIG_FUCKING_PAY_CHECK.
Way to let your ignorance waste your vote, when you get out of school and clear your head a little maybe you'll get in touch with reality.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
You're pretty much completely missing my point.
No, I got your point completely. It was just wrong.
Let me re-iterate: based on my experience with their past behavior (browsers), it is not outside the realm of possibility that MS is doing something to entice game developers and/or video card makers to solely develop for directX.
Why would they need to do anything at all? Any game company that wants to make money is already going to know to develop for the platform that holds 90% of the desktop market. Your second point doesn't make any sense since all video cards support OpenGL and have for a decade and more.
It could very well be that directX is a better platform to design games for, and that's why most gaming companies use it, but my thought was that *gasp* maybe MS is reenforcing it's monopoly on desktops through anti-competitive behavior.
DirectX is easier to develop for which is why even id Software, a long time developer on OpenGL, started doing DirectX development. Or are you going to claim that Carmack was bought out by Microsoft?
I bet you'd never expect MS to try something like that, or that they might try and use their desktop monopoly to build games for the xbox 360.
This doesn't even make sense. What does their desktop monopoly have to do with making games for the 360?
...MS doesn't dictate whose machine I can run their OS on (even though I have no Windows computers art home).
Instead, they pressure the manufacturers into excluding competitor operating systems on computers they deem to be their target market. The "Windows tax" is collected before you get the machine, so you might as well accept the pre-installed product and use it -- like it or not.
I fail to see how that is better.
You're pretty much completely missing my point. Let me re-iterate: based on my experience with their past behavior (browsers), it is not outside the realm of possibility that MS is doing something to entice game developers and/or video card makers to solely develop for directX.
You mean like advancing Direct 3d to contain new features with every major release, while Khronos dropped nearly every new feature from the long-awaited OpenGL 3.0 spec?
Is Obama given the authority to regulate businesses - specifically hiring practices. If we allow Obama, et al, to come in and under "anti-trust" provisions penalize these companies for NOT hiring away top talent then our nation has taken a drastic turn towards Marxism. The "hiring truce" is in no way anti-competitive in the sense that it does not affect the marketplace. We still have complete choice between any search engine. Ironically, the one oddly missing from this hiring truce is Microsoft, who is the only one to be convicted of violating anti-trust law! There is no way employments functionally produce a way to maintain market power. If you could put someone else similarly competent, in the position, you'll get a similar result.
The Russians were amazed when Obama "fired" the CEO of GM!
I don't want to hear that it "keeps wages down" or that it is a form of "non-compete". Anti-trust laws are not about jobs. They are about markets. I can use any search engine - google, yahoo, bing(wtf?) and I have plenty of hardware choices. Where I don't have enough choice though is in PC OSs. Thank you, Microsoft.
We are embarking down a dark path as a nation. Government interference in hiring practices? I can understand racial discrimination (marginally so) but a hiring truce? Give me a break.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
*crickets chirping*
In the technology business, the guy with the money buys up the talent to kill his competition. It was that way before IBM displaced Rand McNally. Microsoft turned it into a sledgehammer. Google headed down that path. Yahoo! said "what up with do no evil beothes?". So, folks made a pact of sorts not to do it.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Does Peter Gibbons still work at Genentech?
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
I remind that having a monopoly on a particular product is not illegal. What is illegal is "abusive behaviour by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position" (link). What you are saying is that gaming companies are just developing for the platform that holds 88% o the market. What I am suggesting is that there is a strong possibility that MS is doing more than just making a good platform to design games, they could be colluding with video card developers or game producers to keep it that way so that no other platform could get games, which in turn reinforces their monopoly on the OS. How do you know that MS doesn't offer an unfair advantage to developing on the directX? Are you a developer? Do you know what kinds of deals MS does with e.g., id software? I don't, that's why I'm asking.
As for consoles, can you really not see that MS is trying to use its monopoly on desktops and PC games to leverage itself into the console market? Really?
As for the Mac, don't be ridiculous, the Mac might get some of the more popular titles, but I argue that it's nowhere near the percentage of people using macs at home, AND they get them late if they do get them.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Here you go.
It's not about non-compete agreements between employer and employee. It's about standard boilerplate language in most IT contracts that stipulates that the parties to the agreement won't induce the other parties employees to leave. The usual recourse for the employee is to respond to a public job posting from one of the parties. Nothing sinister here, just companies attempting to protect their most valuable assets, their employees.
Isn't a non-compete basically the same thing? Employers go to great lengths to impose their non-compete agreements on prospective employees, most of whom have no trade secrets or proprietary knowledge of anything. The ultimate goal has nothing to do with the employer's competitors; they simply wish to limit the number of offers an employee might receive (from any source). Paying higher salaries would accomplish the same thing, but the paperwork solution is cheaper and gives the legal department something to do.
It just so happens that most (if not all) of the companies mentioned in TFA are California based. There are no non-competes in California. To me, it looks like these companies stand accused of doing what non-California employers already do. It's slightly more obvious in this case, but not much.
The problem could be solved if non-competes were allowed in all 50 states, for an unlimited term. But the catch would be that employers would be obligated to pay the employee their existing compensation for the duration of the non-compete period if they are terminated for any reason. If their knowledge is SOOOO valuable, then paying them to sit on the bench would be a relative bargain, no? If not, then ditch the strategy.
Since he is, in effect, the CEO of both GM and Chrysler, Obama is the biggest antitrust violator of all.
dilute???
I think you mean delude. Or perhaps you're just delusional.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
What you are saying is that gaming companies are just developing for the platform that holds 88% o the market.
Exactly. They are developing for a platform that will actually be profitable not a fringe OS that will provide them with no real appreciable gain in profits.
What I am suggesting is that there is a strong possibility that MS is doing more than just making a good platform to design games, they could be colluding with video card developers or game producers to keep it that way so that no other platform could get games,
And yet you have no evidence of this. And it's even more amusing in light of the fact of the current state of the proprietary nVIDIA and ATI drivers for Linux.
which in turn reinforces their monopoly on the OS.
It may to some degree, but gaming is hardly even a major reason they hold their huge market share.
How do you know that MS doesn't offer an unfair advantage to developing on the directX?
Because they have no need to do so?
Are you a developer?
Yes, I am and I know plenty of people who do game development. They don't develop for Windows due to some huge conspiracy. It's because the platform is easier to develop for and it's one in which they will actually make money.
As for consoles, can you really not see that MS is trying to use its monopoly on desktops and PC games to leverage itself into the console market? Really?
Yes, I can't since the two markets are completely unrelated in any way. Exactly in what way is a console game maker going to care or be swayed by Microsoft's desktop OS market share?
As for the Mac, don't be ridiculous, the Mac might get some of the more popular titles, but I argue that it's nowhere near the percentage of people using macs at home, AND they get them late if they do get them.
Ah, but you were trying to claim that there was some grand scheme to prevent games being made for anything but Windows but it must not work very well if Mac games are still being made and ported.
Seriously neither Google nor Yahoo! are anything close to a monopoly.
I understand your confusion. Most of the discussion of antitrust law on Slashdot is a discussion of Microsoft. Antitrust law is about undermining markets by leveraging market share. These laws apply to monopolies and cartels (also known as trusts). The RIAA is a good example. It is a bunch of companies illegally colluding to undermine the music publishing industry, although no individual member company has a monopoly. In this case the contention is that several tech companies are colluding and forming a trust to collectively disadvantage employees in the tech industry, instead of competing for hires.
Doesn't it make much more sense to go after MS rather then companies which are definitely not monopolies and not abusive ones at that?
It makes sense to go after both, but it seems like such obvious, long term abuse as MS has been engaged in would be a prime target if they weren't donating so much money to both political parties.
Google has two main differences, I think, for now:
1. They're still largely controlled by some fairly idealistic folks, who are now so filthy rich that they aren't that worried about making even more money, so much as using their multi-billion-dollar playground to incubate things they think of as cool. As long as their playground continues making significant profit margins, the third-party investors will probably let them do this.
2. In many of their market segments, their self-interest isn't as badly aligned with openness as it is for some large companies. With Google's resources, they can afford to make open protocols, avoid a walled-garden approach and allow people to move their data in/out, etc., because they're banking on the competitive advantage of, "go ahead, just try to duplicate this... here, we'll even give you the code and the APIs, now good luck coming up with and setting up / maintaining that much computing power for a lower price than it costs us". This is actually a positive marketing tool in some areas, because a few large companies have gotten burned with data locked into proprietary formats from now-defunct companies, so "we can get our data back out of this thing, right?" is something even companies that don't care about open source are asking these days.
I agree with you that it's quite possible these will change. If its profit margins start going down, investors will start demanding more "normal corporation" type of stuff to try to prop them up, and the founders and their lieutenants will no longer have complete freedom to do what they'd like. If people seem like they are starting to move off some of the services, Google will come under investor pressure to try to lock them in, or at least to no longer be so nice about helping customers avoid lock-in.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You chose your username wisely.
Are they too big to be looked at or have they bought off so many politicians that they are too corrupt to prosecute. Europe seems to have the right approach. While this investigation is about labor pools and collusion there needs to be a major effort to look at restraint of trade on the sell side. A 90% market share coupled with the practices M$ uses, including buying off standards committees, Norway for example, and bribing African nations to not use Linux when it is obvious that the people of the nation will not see a cent until it has been filtered through the pockets of the power people and most of it salted away in Swiss bank accounts, should at least be cause for asking some questions, no matter how much of congress they now own. Their practices make Carnegie and Rockefeller look like amateurs.
Which currently has managed a maximum of 2 hours 23 minutes.
Which is nice.
Nice red herring, but it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that teh whole uproar over Sotomayor was based on a single ruling out of all of her years in the federal judiciary. One ruling hardly justifies being called "pro-RIAA".
Well... to be fair, when you are a Supreme Court justice, sometimes one case makes all the difference in the world. Just ask the pro-life people or the Gore campaign.
One case does not prove a trend, but it does set markers about where the judge is prepared to go under certain circumstances. If you have done it once, you can can certainly do it again. Whether you like it or not, her decision is a concrete fact that she, at the very least, needs to explain. Or rather, needs to explain if she cares at all about the people who are concerned with it.
That said, as I've said before, her RIAA chops are probably not what is really propelling her to this position and is not likely to have much bearing on any part of this nomination. Not unless they uncover that she was handed a suitcase full of money or something anyway.
That said, as I've said before, her RIAA chops are probably not what is really propelling her to this position and is not likely to have much bearing on any part of this nomination.
Except that the case that is supposedly the one who got her labeled as "pro-RIAA" had nothing to do with the RIAA to begin with which makes the original claim even more ridiculous.
My father works for one of the Dodge dealerships that are not being closed. While they are not the biggest sellers in the area they have excellent financial because:
A) The owner is "a cheap bastard who know where every penny goes and never spends one where he can avoid it" (Note: This was not a compliment when my father said it, but he considers it one now :-) )
B) They never did the majority of their business selling cars. They make most of their money on parts and service. In the down economy this is actually great, because they aren't feeling the hit in new car sales as badly as some, and their parts and service departments are doing better than ever. People would rather pay for a repair than spend the money on a new car.
Many of the very large and powerful dealerships that are being closed have dismal financial. They've spent a fortune on fancy showrooms, borrowed a ton of money to do it, and their business models are based entirely on selling a huge volume of cars quickly. Sure they sell more cars than my Dad's place does even now, but many of them are buried in red ink. Of course I can't speak to every dealership in the country, and I'm sure you can point to one that doesn't fit my argument; but in general what they're looking at is profitability and long term viability, not volume.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Outlaw non-competes & these deals! It'll ultimately raise all tech workers salaries.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
How can it not be antitrust behavior to put strong pressure on OEM's not to sell competing products? The availability of Linux doesn't change the fact that any manufacturer of anything competing with Windows gets a big gun aimed at their head. Remember BeOS, OLPC and Asus netbooks? Those are solid examples where a manufacturer and its customer wants one thing and Microsoft coerces them to ditch alternatives in favor for Windows. Its blatant open and utter contempt for ordinary market forces at play here and it hurts the market much more than it hurts the competitors to Microsoft.
Microsoft is abusing OEMs and directing them to the point that the only thing left they can compete on is price alone. Theres nothing they can differentiate at all. ASUS did go the Linux route, was extremely succesful and still ditched Linux because of enormous pressure from Microsoft. Even if Linux based netbooks sold like butter they vanished off the market. The same goes for any competitor on the OS market. Nobody will get past Microsoft no matter how god OS gets released and thats the real problem. Numerous old inventions in the OS realm still waits for someone to implement them but its just wasted money to do so because of how Microsoft abuses its current monopoly.
Were at a complete standstill when it comes to computing and its all thanks to Microsoft and lax US antitrust regulations. Imagine where we would be today hadnt US DOJ stepped in 1980 and wrangled the computing market away from IBM? You sure as heck wouldnt be having a computer at home thats for sure!
HTTP/1.1 400
I worked as an engineer at HP about 15 years ago. Every year they herded all the employees into meeting rooms to tell us about annual pay raises. They would make a presentation about how the HP HR people got together with HR people from other big name companies around silicon valley and decided what each engineering job position was worth and how big the raises for the current year should be. I was utterly disgusted and shocked that they would talk about it as if they were proud of the fact that they were fixing "prices".
I'm glad someone is finally suing the bastards. It should have been done a LOOOOOONG time ago. Now they need to be straightened out over H1B visas and the indentured servants they create.
No one can "game" companies to get more than they are worth. Companies will not pay anyone more than they are worth (except CEOs, but that's a special situation where a bunch of his pals are voting on his and their own pay). It might work for a few weeks or even months, but if someone isn't performing up to expectations they are unceremoniously dumped on the street (again, except CEOs).
When companies agree not to hire each other's employees away what they are really saying is that if someone comes looking for a job they won't be offered any more salary or benefits than they are getting where they currently work.
In fact, companies start new hires at some specific, low level of vacation time so that if you change companies your benefits actually go down. That keeps everyone right where they are, which is the goal of those companies that collude to prevent movement of workers.
I work at Google, and in the past 6 months I've received job offers from both Yahoo! and Apple. Its not much of a secret agreement if all the companies are clearly violating it by trying to recruit out from under the others.
More FUD, probably somehow initiated by Microsoft, attacking and smearing its competitors.
Is this supposed to be funny? Their entire business model is based upon being anti-competitive. Ever hear of Windows Media Player? What about the Xbox? And no, just because Sony and Nintendo do the same things with their consoles doesn't make it right or not anti-competitive.
No, you misunderstand. Microsoft was charged, convicted, and punished for their actions. The punishment was severely inadequate for the crime, but as long as Microsoft follows it (and yes, I am aware they have been skirting the edge of it for a while), they are protected by double jeopardy/res judicata.
Wow, blatant disregard for facts and logic. You truly are a hardcore Microsoft hater!
Are you nuts? You expecting game developers to develop games for platforms that have a tiny fraction of the market is bonkers, not to mention down right selfish on your part.
Let's do some math. I'll pull some magic numbers out of my ass, definitely biased towards your suggestion. I'll take a reasonably fair number and assume that linux/mac have 15% of the market, currently. Now, how many of those people do you think will actively buy games for their platform? Lets say 30% for linux, say 50% for the mac, and 30% for the windows, to be fair.
0.3 * 0.15 = 4.5% for linux.
0.5 * 0.15 = 7.5% for mac
0.85 * 0.3 = 25.5% for Windows.
Therefore:
(4.5 / 25.5 * 100) Profit loss moving development from windows to linux = 100% to 17.64%.
(7.5 / 25.5 * 100) Profit loss moving development from windows to mac = 100% to 29.41%
Now, these are overly generous figures towards your side, and a gross oversimplification of the situation. Not to mention the added cost of developing games for a platform that probably none of your developers have experience in. Or perhaps the added cost of having to develop for 2 or more platforms, even with OpenGL.
So let me get this straight: You are pissed off that they are not willing to reduce their profits four fold?
Here's some homework for you. Promote your favorite platform and maybe, just maybe, someday it will be as successful as Windows currently is. Until then, deal with the fact that your favorite OS is not the best, and quit whining about it.
MS was convicted for the things they did with IE and Java. Windows Media Player and the Xbox had nothing to do with their previous conviction, they are new violations. Double jeopardy has nothing to do with them not being charged with new violations.