Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, EU Reach Antitrust Accord
alphadogg writes "Microsoft appears to have reached an agreement with the European Commission that concludes an antitrust battle that has lasted a decade, Europe's top competition regulator said today. A proposal the company offered in July to address charges of monopoly abuse were dismissed as insufficient by the Commission, as well as by rivals in the software industry. But the latest iteration appears to have mollified the EC's regulator. 'We believe this is an answer,' said competition commissioner Neelie Kroes in a press conference. 'I think this is a trustful deal we are making. There can't be a misunderstanding because it is the final result of a long discussion between Steve Ballmer and me.' The new settlement offer addresses charges that Microsoft distorted competition in its favor in the market for web browsers, by giving its Internet Explorer browser an unfair advantage over rivals."
The Register points out this interesting quote from the materials Microsoft released on the subject: "Microsoft shall ensure that third-party software products can interoperate with Microsoft's Relevant Software Products using the same Interoperability Information on an equal footing as other Microsoft Software Products."
If this actually happens, it will be a Very Good Thing for the world in general, as Microsoft will no longer be legally able to keep changing their protocols to break access by non-Microsoft software.
Given their track record, though, I don't believe for a minute that Microsoft will actually make all the information available in a clear and usable format. More likely they'll release some information that looks nice, to show what good boys they're being, then release some more information terribly scrambled, and keep most of the information to themselves, because by that point the EU will be paying less attention to them and they'll have to take them back to court to get them to do anything more.
Same old story.
And yes, I am a terminal cynic. Why do you ask? ;-)
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
I don't know what's worse - the possibility that he could be so naive, or the probability that this is a backroom deal, and we are never going to know the whole story.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
'This proposed measure ensures that PC manufacturers will continue to be able to install any browser on top of Windows and make any browser the default. It also ensures that PC manufacturers and users will be able to turn Internet Explorer on and off '
And with 'search' going to be directly embedded into the applications, the 'choice' of browser is going to become moot.
"This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine [...] We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again." --Neville Chamberlain, September 1938.
Go somewhere random
This only affects the browser market where Microsoft is steadily losing ground anyway. The fact of the matter is that the operating system itself is still untouched and Microsoft still has no penalty for pulling more and more functionality into the OS itself.
The problem has never been just browsers or messaging utilities or office suites or default home pages. It is about how Microsoft uses its monopoly power on the desktop to stifle competitors. This could have been handled years ago except the American judge couldn't stay awake long enough to do anything but parrot the prosecuting attorney's notes.
MS should have been broken into an OS company and an apps company long ago. But it didn't happen, and we're all still the worse off for it. Trying to change anything by half-assed measures like forcing the user to choose a browser is just not going to work.
Microsoft would have to restructure a part of their OS to make that possible but with 'turning IE off' you can effectivly hide IE from the user completely so it's not a bad deal, the average user will never know it's still there.
Dyslexics are teople poo
Not by your definition of 'monopoly', no. But it is by the EU's, and since they also write the laws, that's the one MS have to work to, too.
Both of your links are reprints of the first linked article in the summary.... Neither better nor worse as they are the same....
I imagine it'd be doable for Linux, but even if I'm wrong there, I'd suggest it's perfectly possible on OSX.
It is. The issue is MS finding itself in a dominant market position[0], and then abusing that position. It's the abuse that's angering people, not the market dominance. The problem with abusing the dominant position is it acts to stifle competition, which slows innovation. As long as MS is seen as the only viable option, and allowed to continue to strengthen it's position as such, there is no need for MS to put any effort into being the best option. [0] Which proably was through having best-of-breed. Some would say this infers less than complimentary things about who was defining 'best' at the time. I'm not going to comment, I wasn't paying attention at the time.
installing Firefox on windows. What is all the fuss about?
Microsoft's ActiveSync is already on 50 million and growing Apple devices, the Palm Pre and Google has licensed it for it's online sync service. IE is old news and MS doesn't seem to care about it anymore. Now MS owns the technology that transfers documents and email over the internet between devices.
In operating systems, you are correct. Aside from some licensing shenanigans with PC manufacturers, MS came to dominates OS's the same way Google came to dominate search - people chose it more than the competition.
Which is wholly beside the point. Having gained a monopoly in one field (nominally) legally, they then used that monopoly to eliminate competition in other areas. That is the issue here.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
This sounds like it could provide strong legal protection for anyone that wants to use Moonlight should Microsoft start to invoke patents on non-Novell users.
Sorry, but it's not a monopoly as long as I can buy one of these [apple.com], one of these [sun.com], or even one of these [dell.com].
Believe it or not, the world does not revolve around you. The end user is not the one with no power in MS's antitrust issues here. The question is, "can Dell license OS X for inclusion on their computer systems aimed at the home and corporate markets? Can Dell install Solaris or Ubuntu replacing Windows on the systems they ship, without going out of business? No they can't, except for a few niche markets, so MS has them over a barrel. That isn't even illegal, but screwing over other markets by using the fact that they have Dell over a barrel and using that influence to control Dell to the detriment of other markets is.
You've raised an interesting point there. OOo is changing their behaviour to be more compatible with Excel - in that text cells containing values that can be interpreted as numbers can be used in calculations - and this is one of the key reasons (or excuses) why Microsoft put their formulae into a different namespace. I wonder if they will change that when the OOo change is released, and what excuse they will use if they don't.
Gee, too bad that quote didn't come from Apple.
I was told repeatedly, on slashdot and elsewhere, that offering a choice could never work. The script was to complicated, among other things. You can't download anything until the browser is installed, among other things. That Microsoft couldn't offer browsers which they didn't own, among other things.
After all those highly intelligent individuals convinced me that this browser ballot was impossible, I KNOW it has to be fake! Those screenshots are photoshopped, it's all a figment of some demented Euro's imagination!!
NURSE!! I need another pill, please!
Ahh, to hell with the pill. Screw all the astroturfers who spent all their time with wasted arguements.
"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
Will anyone else be surprised when Microsoft backs out on today's agreement when they take exception to some fuzzy detail?
This is a classic delay tactic. Meanwhile the EU is conditioned to accept their misbehavior thus paving the way for more abuse.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Other browsers don't comply with the W3C standards and have there own extensions as well, so those should be kicked off port 80 as well then. And who judges what is compliant and what is not?
Microsoft should be forced to halt any further support for non-standards compliant browsers and should not be allowed to create extensions and addons that could be further used to damage compatibility with W3C standards.
I get your point, but an absolute ban goes too far. For example, if Microsoft wanted to implement Firefox's "layerX" and "layerY" JavaScript elements for compatability, they would not be allowed to because that is a non-standard extension of JavaScript? Or, if JavaScript is a bad example, how about the Blink element? Firefox supports it, but should Microsoft be banned from doing so?
Dell has been selling redhat on their business computers for a few years now. I would like to see more choices for the home line. The end user IS the one with no power. The end user does not decide which computers dell, hp, or anyone else sells. Those companies do. Unless that company sells no computers and all their research points to the os as the reason, nothing will change. Remember that if you buy a dell computer and have issues with it who do you call first? Most non computer people call dell first.
I would like to see as many os options available from a hardware vendor. This would tell me that their hardware is good and works well. Home level or non computer tech customer support is going to be an issue. Getting people to switch off of something they are used to is a pain.
At least not unless it's still being used on the back end somehow:
Windows Update
Was there something in the OEM licenses that prevented PC vendors from installing 3rd-party browsers? The "settlement" spends a lot of time talking about the ballot screen for selecting browsers. But I'm not sure why another vendor could not have made their own ballot screen if they wanted. Or just install whatever browser they like.
Vista and up use the new control panel while XP still uses IE and the website.
Actually, no. They became the dominant OS because IBM used MS' OS for its PC and XT. In business, "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" so IBM's PCs became dominant. By the time Compaq cloned an IBM, DOS was the standard office OS, and hardware manufacturers used MS's OS because then their machine would be "IBM compatible".
People used MS' OSes at home because 1) that's what they had a work and 2) that's what came pre-installed on their computer.
If the CP/M guy hadn't missed that meeting, and Billl Gates' parents weren't both lawyers who worked for Microsoft, chances are your PC wouldn't be running Windows now. Microsoft owes everything to IBM.
Free Martian Whores!
Different rules apply when you are ruled to be an abusive monopoly. When/if others out there in the market get big enough to cause harm to others by breaking standards and using means and methods that others cannot, you can expect similar responses. Market regulators (which are absolutely essential to maintaining the health of the market) say quite clearly that one should not leverage your monopoly position in one market to gain monopolies in other markets especially when it harms other players existing in that market. In this case, it is their desktop OS monopoly being used to damage the web client/server market.
"Which is wholly beside the point. Having gained a monopoly in one field (nominally) legally, they then used that monopoly to eliminate competition in other areas."
OK, so they are dominant in one area - the desktop OS market. Now which competitors have they eliminated and what specific MS actions caused that elimination?
This antitrust suit started years ago. You need older ads to even begin to make a case.
Dell has been selling redhat on their business computers for a few years now.
Sure, for a very small, niche segment of their business customers. They cannot, however, replace Windows as the OS component on all their business PC's the way they can replace the soundcard component in all their business PC's, because if they do they will go out of business.
The end user IS the one with no power.
Not as a direct result of MS's market influence. MS sells Windows primarily to OEMs and enterprises. They sell very few boxed copies to end users. OEMs and site licensees define the market and are the ones who MS has huge influence over.
I would like to see as many os options available from a hardware vendor.
I'd like a solid gold beagle. What's your point? Is there some law you think should or does make our wishes law?
Not an accord.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091007105147454#comments
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
OK, so they are dominant in one area - the desktop OS market. Now which competitors have they eliminated and what specific MS actions caused that elimination?
The previous poster said they eliminated competition, not competitors. It's the same as eliminating competition by sabotaging a rival athlete's car so they can't get to the track meet or cutting their hamstring or rubbing grease on their shoes. You don't actually have to kill the rival in order to eliminate competition.
MS has dominance in the desktop OS market as you said. They have used that to gain an advantage in the web browser, media jukebox software, server OS, and several other markets. The method they used was tying, and for web browsers the specific method was bundling, the most common form of tying. Now to preclude any uninformed but common concepts you might bring up in reply: markets don't have to be direct exchanges of cash for laws or economic principals to apply; "free" is a marketing term, rather than an economics term in this case; the law applies to separate, existing markets at the time of the abuse regardless of how they are related; tying is defined in terms of markets, not of any other arbitrary grouping; tying is only detrimental and illegal when the tying is between a market with dominance and a separate market so it does not apply to OS X and Safari or Ubuntu and Firefox.
If you want more in depth discussion please make sure you understand what antitrust laws are, why we have them (historically and economically), and why markets are defined the way they are. These are basic facts you should know and understand before making arguments about specific antitrust cases.
This sentence sent the hairs on the back of my neck on edge. How many times have we seen people, companies, legal systems make agreements with Microsoft only to find out that what Microsoft decided the meaning meant was completely different from what the other parties, and common sense, believed the agreement meant? The Novell / Microsoft agreement of recent which was made public the day after the signing of the agreement. Microsoft said it was about patents and Novell said it was about interoperability. To top if off, Novell people said that the patent stuff was thrown in at the 11th hour so you know this bait and switch was planned from the start at One Microsoft Way( FYI, that's the name of the street their headquarters are on ).
Good to see others are feeling the same way about this too. This does go to show yet again that legal systems are not going to protect the public from Microsoft's attack on small startup businesses, new ideas and... wait for it.... innovation. A decade of playing cat and mouse with Microsoft? Even SCO is still around so forget about the legal systems doing a thing to change Microsoft's way of doing business.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Is that how they plan to advance interoperability without hindrance?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
You seem to be confusing HTTP and HTML. Aside from the ugly hack between IE and IIS a few years back where it skipped parts of the TCP handshake, IE conforms to the relevant HTTP standards. If it didn't, you wouldn't be able to get files from Apache with IE. HTTP is used to transfer a lot of things that are not web pages. The protocol identifier in the URL is exactly that; a protocol identifier. It does not identify the payload, nor what will be done with the payload.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
In the days of Netscape the average computer user was much closer to the system than we see today, and he was rewarded because the next generation browser had genuine improvements.
It is quite scary to hear how today's computer users don't see or comprehend a difference between an application and it's purpose.
IE is the internet, Outlook is mail.
I recently removed IE 8 from a computer that had ground to a crawl because of it and installed Firefox instead.
Initially the owner of the computer was absolutely convinced I had removed The Internet from his machine.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
The regulator is not naive. He knows he's rubberstamping, and giving a lame excuse.
If I were debugging a program and I said:
'I think this is a trustful design change we are making. There can't be a design fault because it is the final result of a long debugging session between the application and me.'
You would probably think I was crocked in the head. Long sessions usually indicate deep faults, not easy design fixes. Long negotiations don't suddenly become "trustful" just because the two parties couldn't get close enough for amicable agreement. This negotiator knows that. He's part of a scam.
In other words, he's not naive, but we would be naive to believe that this agreement is anything but a hoax, or that he's innocent of this hoax.
This agreement is not the usual rubberstamp you are looking for. Move along.
The only problems is lack of choice of hardware and paying a premium for another OS:
From Dell (in the UK) if you want Linux, you are limited to exactly 1 laptop; and if you spec it the same as the equivalent Windows offering it works out exactly the same price (£249).
Which kind of begs the question:
Are Dell making more money on the Linux version? Or do they have to pay Microsoft for this laptop anyway?
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
right, that's why Microsoft had to go out and purchase Netscape contracts ISP's had and then pay those ISP's to ship Internet Explorer and when the browser was not purposefully scattered throughout the OS's DLL's, they use threats and coercion to get hardware OEM's to load Internet Explorer instead of Netscape Navigator.
anti-trust laws are to protect businesses from monsters like Microsoft who leverage their position to block other companies from new markets.
And FYI, anti-trust laws to not apply to companies who do not have a monopoly position and therefore do not have the power to stifle competition. So any OS has the right to do what they want as long as they are doing so legally but they don't have to worry about anit-trust laws. Those laws are so competition has a level playing field and the big bad guys can't just keep playing whack-a-mole flattening every new idea and company out there.
So unless Microsoft can actually invent something and get it onto their OS first, when they go off and start throwing other things into their OS, they have to allow other companies with similar products continue to play on that platform. Microsoft hasn't really invented much of anything on Windows and instead follows what others have done and shoves that onto preloaded computers so as long as they continue this and continue their marketshare, they will continue to be held to anti-trust laws.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Pretty loose ties. http://c.fsdn.com/sd/logo.png is a valid URI, and IE renders it perfectly well. Anyway, you're talking nonsense, and no-one is going to listen to you.
try that URL with an SVG file that other standards compliant browsers can handle easily. And keep in mind that not all versions of MSIE can handle PNG either.
If you are using MSIE, test for yourself here:
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/southpark/images/8/8e/SouthparkCards.svg
Now try it again with Firefox, Opera or Safari among others.
Nice attempt to deflect based on the idea that I'm not qualified to speak.
What are you talking about? I asked you to make sure you actually understand the concepts of a topic before commenting on it, so I don't have to repeat for the hundredth time an explanation of how antitrust law works and why it exists. Why people feel they should express their opinion without being informed on this topic, when they would not do so on geophysics or Perl is beyond me.
"gaining an advantage" against a competing product is quite different than "eliminating" one.
Yes it is. But since both are detrimental and both are illegal if you're leveraging an existing monopoly to do it, your comment lacks relevance. Windows ME and Windows XP are quite different, but that doesn't have any bearing here, either.
But in some cases there isn't much evidence even for the lesser charge.
In some cases? Please be specific about what cases you feel are lacking in evidence because the whole thing is pretty open and shut from my perspective. MS did not even bother to contest the charges with regard to IE this time around after having been convicted in several other jurisdictions.
What server OS's have MS gained an advantage over because they dominate the desktop and how was it done?
MS was convicted of leveraging their desktop OS to gain an advantage in the server OS space by creating secret and nonstandard protocols for communication between the various Windows desktop OS's and their Windows Server product. Competitors were forced to reverse engineer these protocols in order to effectively provide services to Windows desktops. These API's and protocols included Active Directory which was specifically addressed. MS was ordered to fully document the protocols and APIs and license them to competitors. This is largely the reason SAMBA is so much more functional these days. MS was convicted in 2004 but did not comply until 2007. You might recall them racking up huge noncompliance fines in the interim. Note, MS was convicted of antitrust violation for tying in this instance, but it was not the specific form of tying that is bundling, which they are guilty of with regard to IE.
"can Dell license OS X for inclusion on their computer systems aimed at the home and corporate markets?
Of course not. The Steve would never allow OS X on computers that are so... common.
Can Dell install Solaris or Ubuntu replacing Windows on the systems they ship, without going out of business?
Of course not, the demand for them in the market is comparatively miniscule.
No they can't, except for a few niche markets, so MS has them over a barrel.
I think you'll find it's the customers who have Dell over a barrel. They would be the ones who dictate whether or not the computers Dell sells will be bought.
Typical European Protectionism
Yeah, because when I'm being protectionist I implement policies that promote four US companies in addition to one european one that isn't a member state of the European Union I work for. I further take care to word the decision such that if that one european competitor slips just a bit in market share they are removed entirely from the solution. Also, just to cover my tracks, spend a decade convicting european companies of antitrust violations on a regular basis and handing out big fines and remedies to them.
For all purposes Windows is the only pre-installed OS.
To continue my observations of today's users, a computer is Windows.
There's only a very thin upper layer of users that understand the bits that make up a computer and the interactions they have.
Even the concept that a computer is still a computer when it comes without an OS is remote to most. (Is that possible?)
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I think you'll find it's the customers who have Dell over a barrel. They would be the ones who dictate whether or not the computers Dell sells will be bought.
Sellers are always directly accountable to purchasers and this is normal and beneficial to the operation of a competitive market. The problem with monopolies is they break that. Dell as a purchaser should have the power over MS. If M meets their needs Dell buys from them. If not, Dell buys from a competitor. Except in this case Dell has no other realistic options for the mainstream because of lock-in to Windows. As a result, regardless of if MS does what their customers want, the customers still buy from MS. All of this is legal, but it places MS in a position of power over Dell and other OEMs and when a company is in such a position of power the law forbids them from using it to make other markets less competitive.
For example, if MS makes them pay for the cost of developing Internet Explorer and bundles that cost into the cost of Windows, when there was a preexisting market for web browsers, then MS is using their power in the desktop OS market to force Dell to do something they would not do in a competitive market. At the same time, MS is hurting other companies that profit from producing web browsers. If MS convinces OEs they will have their prices raised higher than their competitors if they uninstall IE or install another browser, they're doing the same. If they continue both practices while at the same time intentionally breaking compatibility with other Web browsers, with the intent of making the Web itself reliant upon their browser, they are certainly illegally leveraging their position, and that is exactly what documents discovered by the courts showed MS's strategy to be.
People mostly don't choose Windows any more than they choose what brand of radio or tires come with their car. They don't buy Windows, they buy a Dell.
Free Martian Whores!
"begs the question".
No, it raises the question. Begging the question is where you include the answer you want buried somewhere in your assumptions. Doing that guarantees that you get the answer you want even though you make it look like it's the result of logical argument.
The only problems is lack of choice of hardware and paying a premium for another OS:
Not at all. Even if every computer Dell sold and every other OEM sold came with the option of Windows or Linux, that does nothing to lessen MS's power over Dell unless Windows actually lost market share significantly as a result. Until they lose the ability to leverage their large market share into other markets, they need to be effectively stopped by the courts from doing so. I favor doing this by directly eliminating their monopoly, but the EU will never do so for diplomatic reasons.
It's like you can't answer the question.
Moreover, I do not see the option for an ubuntu notebook on Dell's italian site.
For example, if MS makes them pay for the cost of developing Internet Explorer and bundles that cost into the cost of Windows, when there was a preexisting market for web browsers, [...]
The primary tenuous assumption here being that there was ever a distinct market for web browsers. The second being that the price of Windows would have changed if it didn't have IE.
Unless, of course, you want to argue that every single aspect of Windows's functionality introduced with and since Windows 95, is an antitrust violation ?
People mostly don't choose Windows any more than they choose what brand of radio or tires come with their car. They don't buy Windows, they buy a Dell.
No, they buy a computer that runs Windows, and happens to be sold by Dell.
That's because the *real* selling point is the applications - and the applications run on Windows, so customers want Windows.
The ultimate "problem" is that the applications people want - the only aspect of the computer most of them care about - run on Windows.
For example, if MS makes them pay for the cost of developing Internet Explorer and bundles that cost into the cost of Windows, when there was a preexisting market for web browsers, [...]
The primary tenuous assumption here being that there was ever a distinct market for web browsers.
That's not even slightly tenuous when you understand how the law defines markets. There does not have to be direct sales, just profit. Mozilla makes money today by creating a web browser.
The second being that the price of Windows would have changed if it didn't have IE.
Which is not something that is necessary or even needs to be proved to hold up in court. Unless the developers working on IE do so out of charity, it assumed a bundled costs by the courts otherwise it would always be impossible to prove such violations. Just because you call something "free" in marketing does not mean economists or judges accept your claim at face value. When you do a buy one get one free sale at the grocery store, you can still sue the maker is still liable for and damages because of the second product. The same is true here. It's bundled, but since it only comes with a purchased product it is bundling.
Unless, of course, you want to argue that every single aspect of Windows's functionality introduced with and since Windows 95, is an antitrust violation ?
We've had this discussion before. Pre-existing separate markets are the criteria for abuse. Not every feature added to Windows, only those added once MS had monopoly power that duplicated the functionality of products from pre-existing separate markets. That does include a lot of items MS has not been taken to court for yet, but that doesn't mean they are not illegal.
"Whereas, Company does not desire to receive any information that could be used to clone or port Microsoft products in whole or in part" I don't see the point, then.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
You state that MS was "convicted" (your expertise is slipping) of leveraging their desktop OS to gain an advantage in the server OS space but you don't provide any evidence that indeed they did.
What you slept through the dozens of Slashdot articles and major news outlet coverage of the previous EU antitrust trial. Yes they were CONVICTED as antitrust law is criminal law in the US and EU. â497 million, the largest fine they'd ever handed out when MS stalled on complying with the order for years.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1016_3-5060463.html
How much market share did competing products lose?
How could anyone say? What portion of the growth MS experienced was due to their criminal activities and what was due to honest competition? Would they have been losing market share if they were not breaking the law? No one will ever know for certain.
How much market share did competing products lose?
Linux lost about 7% and other UNIX versions about 13% the same over that time period. It's hard to get reliable numbers.
Is MS now the market leader in Sever[sic] OS's? Have they ever been?
By revenue, yes they do have the largest chunk of the market at about 38%.
This is about preserving the status quo in the server space, to reduce competition by holding back MS.
How is giving all servers a level playing field and letting all of them access Windows desktops the same way, holding MS back? Are you implying they can only win market share by artificially breaking other server OS's instead of by making the best server?
It's not about increasing competition it's about decreasing it.
Yeah in Bizaaro World letting monopolies leverage their monopolies into new markets increases competition. You're one of the worst MS apologizers I've ever heard. Even if you don't agree with the laws on the books, everyone has to follow them. MS wouldn't even exist if the same laws had not been enforced against IBM in the first place. Now MS should be allowed to break them at will? Frankly, I think you're an idiot or an astroturfer.
Wow. The insanity of laws knows no bounds.
Yeah, now if only you understood why we have antitrust laws you might reconsider that opinion.
I imagine you'd have trouble finding a single feature added to Windows since its invention, that didn't exist in some piece of independent software beforehand.
That's irrelevant. For the third time "Pre-existing separate markets".
That, in essence, you're arguing Windows cannot exist in both a useful and antitrust-compliant fashion, should hopefully highlight the foolishness of it.
It absolutely can, they just need to structure themselves with compliance with the law in mind. But hey, if you think it's impossible, that's fine because an MS that has had their monopoly power removed by being split up is the best possible thing for innovation and competition. By all means, let's assume it is impossible MS will ever be able to comply and break them up so they can bundle anything they want.
I think you're confused. As I've pointed out numerous times on Slashdot and the media has pointed out in just about any article about the US Antitrust case against MS it was a civil proceeding, not a criminal one and thus MS wasn't "convicted" of anything.
The European Commission is not a court, it the EU's executive branch that makes EU policy. The fines levied against MS are a matter of policy, not law.
I think you're confused. As I've pointed out numerous times on Slashdot and the media has pointed out in just about any article about the US Antitrust case against MS it was a civil proceeding, not a criminal one and thus MS wasn't "convicted" of anything.
You're mistaken. The Clayton and Sherman acts are both criminal law. You're confused because most antitrust cases begin as civil suits, but are then taken over by the Department of Justice. The DoJ does not sue anyone, they prosecute them.
The European Commission is not a court, it the EU's executive branch that makes EU policy. The fines levied against MS are a matter of policy, not law.
It's true the EC is not a court. They are an executive body just like the DoJ is. They work things slightly differently in that the EC can levy fines directly, but those the fines are levied against can go to the court to contest them if they want to make a trial out of it. MS did appeal their last case to the court and was convicted. This case they did not bother to contest. You're right that the EC enforces policy, but it's policy like "we will aggressively go after criminals involved in money laundering" not some arbitrary enforcement of ill defined rules. They are enforcing the law and competition law in the EU is criminal law.
So, what you are saying is that:
- IBM chose MS over the competition
- Businesses chose IBM over the competition
- People chose MS over the competition
You will note that I said "chose" in my original post. You seem to think I used the word "better" or something like that. I didn't, specifically because, while they may have been ill-thought or unwise, people still CHOSE to use MS products.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
No, but that's not microsoft's fault.
"The DoJ does not sue anyone, they prosecute them."
Wikipedia:
"United States v. Microsoft was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states."
The difference between civil and criminal proceedings is very important. A criminal proceeding requires a much higher standard of proof than does a civil action. It's unlikely that MS would have been found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" which would have been required in a criminal case.
There are those who like to say MS was "convicted" because it sounds more sinister, but the it's still wrong.
"I think you're confused. As I've pointed out numerous times on Slashdot and the media has pointed out in just about any article about the US Antitrust case against MS it was a civil proceeding, not a criminal one and thus MS wasn't "convicted" of anything."
Nice try. While the proceedings were in a civil court, that does NOT mean that they did not violate the law. They were found to have violated United States anti-trust law and a judgement, including penalties, was granted. While the specific penalties were vacated on appeal, the judgement stood.
MS was found to have broken the law. Hours of testimony and reams of evidence were presented to a judge, which is how he made his decision. His remedy was overturned, but not his decision.
MS violated the law - you can't win your argument simply because your opponent said "convicted" instead of "there was a judgement for the plaintiff in a case where MS was the defendant".
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
just because the PC market revolves around Windows does not mean that the dell, gateway and other companies have a right to use the power of the government to tell microsoft what they can or cant do with there OS.
No it means the government can tell Microsoft what they can and can't do with their OS. Microsoft is a corporation, remember? They're a legal entity that exists because the government dreamed up such a thing and even if they weren't the government has the power to pass laws that regulate interstate commerce. Remember we the people are in charge and our democracy created these laws to stop the robber barons and trusts that were causing great harm. So we wrote laws and everyone has to obey them because it is rule by law. IBM had to obey them or MS would not exist. Now MS has to obey them. The EU basically copied the laws already on the books in the US and the US already took MS to court for this same act which MS has not stopped doing.
...they don't tell apple[sic] that OS X cant include sarafi[sic].
No they don't because that particular law does not apply to Apples bundling of OS X and Safari. The government can only punish people who break the law. Weird huh?
...the point is you shouldn't punish sucess[sic].
No, you shouldn't, but the successful are also powerful and power comes with responsibility. We don't punish companies that successfully acquire a warehouse full of dynamite, but they are subject to additional regulations because of the danger represented by the power they have. Monopoly influence on a market is like economic dynamite. It can destroy innovation in a different market if misused.
there are way to many anti trust suits against any company that does well coming from the socialist EU.
How is the EU more socialist that the US? We pay more in taxes to fund government programs than citizens in many EU countries. As for too many antitrust suits, the US has taken MS to court on this exact same antitrust abuse, our courts were just more easily bribed when MS donated piles of money to re-election campaigns and then after the election all the people running the prosecution were replaced and MS was given no real punishment. You're saying the EU should ignore their laws when companies commit crimes? Or are you saying they should be like the US and just accept "lobbying funds" and make the whole thing go away?
both microsoft and intel should just pull there[sic] products out of the EU and then see what they do. then they would come and begging for there[sic] products once they relize[sic] the other crappy options avalible[sic] to them.
Umm, yeah. That would be about the stupidest thing any corporate executive ever did. Ballmer would be fired in hours and replaced. What, exactly, do you think governments do when you break the law while directly challenging their authority? The EU would confiscate all the funds and assets of those companies for further antitrust violations and probably confiscate all their copyrights and patents. Technically the US would even be bound to honor the transfer of intellectual property rights by the treaties we've signed. Even if we didn't you want to bet China and the rest of the world bound by the same treaties would not? Suddenly all MS and Intel patents and copyrights are public domain everywhere but the US, that includes the source code. Even if the US government was a complete puppet, we'd be screwed since it would just mean US companies have to pay while the rest of the world outcompetes us with lower costs.
Yeah, I don't think you've thought any of your ideas through.
Oh, and to answer your question directly: Netscape, Word Perfect, and Digital Research. The first and the third WON court cases based on the evidence that Microsoft violated anti-trust law. I'm not sure about Word Perfect, but I believe there may have been a judgment in that as well.
The DR-DOS case should be ESPECIALLY familiar to a low ID guy like yourself, since the case and its aftermath, including the SCO debacle, have been chronicled here for years.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
First, wikipedia or any encyclopedia is not a valid source. Second, the DoJ filed a criminal suit against MS. The basis for that criminal suit was a consolidation of a series of civil suits. So the quote you cite is accurate, but doesn't say what you think it does.
There are those who like to say MS was "convicted" because it sounds more sinister, but the it's still wrong.
No I say MS was convicted of leveraging their desktop OS influence into the server OS space, because the EU convicted them of it.
The question is, "can Dell license OS X for inclusion on their computer systems aimed at the home and corporate markets?
No, but that's not microsoft's fault.
No it isn't, but that isn't what MS is being convicted of. It's legal for Microsoft to have monopoly influence and have all this power over Dell. It's illegal for MS to abuse that power to gain in other markets.
An analogy would be a person convicted of murder for shooting a person. A lot of people are arguing they did not have a gun and so could not have committed the murder. The fact that Dell cannot license OS X speaks to the amount of power MS has and thus their ability to commit the crime. Since we know they bundled IE with Windows (unless you want argue that) that makes them clearly guilty. (This in continuing our analogy would be the murderer being seen by everyone to hold out their hand and point it at the victim while making a pulling motion with their finger).
My "opponent" started his arguments suggesting I didn't understand antitrust law. So it was quite appropriate to call his error to his attention.
As I said in another post, the distinction between civil and criminal cases are key. If the DOJ had filed a criminal case against MS with it's requirement of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", it's quite possible you would have seen Gates and Balmer high-fiving outside the court after the acquittal.
In fact I think the DOJ shouldn't be able to file civil cases. It's just a loophole to allow them to win without really proving their cases.
Nice try, but actually Norway is not part of the European Union (EU). In case you are wondering, Opera is situated in Oslo which is the capital of Norway. It's also not a really a big business (compared to many other companies here), I really sincerely doubt anyone would give a damn (except their users) if it weren't for the foul play.
Actually, the proceedings were started by Opera when they complained to the European Commission! So even though I do not agree with the parent post, he is right insofar that Opera is involved.
However, you are also overlooking the fact that Norway, though not part of the EU, is part of the European Economic Area (EEA). This is basically an association of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) states (except Switzerland) with the EU to establish a single market that is somewhat like the EU itself, except it isn't.
Anyway, what is important is that most EU antitrust and competition rules are applicable in the EEA as well. This is the reason why Opera could complain to the European Commission at all.
You can read the full case history on the European Commission's website: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/index/by_nr_79.html#i39_530
Axe me while I slumber
Norway isn't in the EU
The EU have initiated proceedings against plenty of European companies, but because in the US your heads are stuck in the sand, the only ones you hear about are MS and Intel:
That's just European companies in 2009.
You're completely wrong, yet could have saved yourself from making such an ignorant comment with one simple Google search. Instead you chose to open your mouth and make a fool of yourself.
Typical unique American blend of ignorance and arrogance; because that 'Buy American' policy of Obama's isn't protectionism at all! Get your own house in order before -- wrongly -- criticising others.
How does any kind of choice exist when a monopolist leverages a monopoly to push technologies that only work in it's browser or only work correctly in its browser.
Further more, how is it considered trolling to point this out.
The GP would be correct only under the condition that the monopolist wrote their browser to conform to standards, which is clearly does not.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
"I think this is a trustful deal we are making." Wait a minute, he made a "trustful deal" with "Steve Ballmer" from "Microsoft"??? This guy doesn't seem to be tech savvy otherwise he would have known about some incompatibilities....
Balmer, Trust, Interoperate -- pick at most two
"Run there's a socialist trying to death-panel gramma!"
Hey Jimbob,
I never said Opera didn't start this for their own profit... I just said it's not some sort of governmental conspiracy on their behalf, apparently this contradicts your perspective
I never said there was a conspiracy. The basis of genuine conservative opposition to government is that you don't have to have a conspiracy to buy it. You just have to have political connections. Government interference undermines the idea of a meritocracy and is undemocratic. If you have a problem with corporate power undermining your rights, the answer is to get rid of the tools that give corporations too much power, not to give up the rest of your rights to the government to "protect you". Socialism is militaristic thinking applied to commercial policy and its just stupid.
This is my sig.
Yeah, now if only you understood why we have antitrust laws you might reconsider that opinion.
Any law which so blatantly harms consumers, is insane.
But without those antitrust laws IBM could have killed MS right away and they would never have made any of the products you seem so enamored of. You do know IBM was under antitrust restrictions at the time, right?
It's basically saying that once a product vendor hits a certain "level of influence", they are legally prohibited from improving their product, should any of those improvements already be provided by third parties.
No, it's saying they have to improve their product in a competitive fashion. If some company sells an Add on for Windows, MS can do the same. They just have to sell it separate from Windows just like their competitors have to. They can make Windows modular if they want to make the task easier. Also, they can add any feature directly into Windows if that feature is actually an innovation and there is not an already existing market for it. Finally, they can improve their product by making it better at fulfilling the role it already does.
If you can't see why that is fundamentally broken, then I'm afraid you're beyond help.
What you said was not true, so that's not an issue.
But lets cut the crap. You think you can do better? What's your proposal. Would you just get rid of all antitrust laws? Would you modify them in some way. What's your alternative proposal?
But they can't. Any feature they add (heck, added, since being ruled a monopoly - it's not like they could know until after the fact) that a third party already provided, is an antitrust violation.
That's your unsupported assertion, not mine.
Forcing people to go out and buy whole new software (and possibly hardware) stacks because their existing vendor is legally prohibited from giving them the improvements they want is "innovation and competition" ?
No forcing MS out of being able to ignore customers brings about innovation and competition. Why do you think capitalism works in the first place. We have five companies making a product instead of one with all sorts of duplicated work as a result. Surely socialism is the way to go to eliminate all that waste. But all that waste is inherent in multiple companies competing and that's what brings innovation. A commercial monopoly is the worst of all possible combinations.
You are arguing that any feature of Windows that was available from a third party beforehand is inherently an antitrust violation.
For the fourth time "Pre-existing separate markets". Any feature of Windows added after they gained a monopoly, that was available from a for profit company is an antitrust violation unless it is sold as a separate purchase from Windows to consumers. If MS wants to sell IE they can, they just have to pitch it to Dell and Lenovo and HP separate from Windows and not using the fact that those companies need Windows to gain them an unfair advantage over Mozilla or Opera.
It's your reasoning, not mine.
No it's your twisted interpretation of my quoting the law.
My reasoning says that your reasoning is obviously and blatantly harmful to consumers, therefore wrong, and therefore won't be held up by any court with some semblance of sanity.
Right then. I asked for a counter proposal. How would you fix antitrust law so it conforms with your economic and legal beliefs?
"Wrong thinking is punishable. Right thinking will be as quickly rewarded. You will find it an effective combination."
You must be retarded if you didn't catch the fact that both Google and Mozilla have joined the antitrust complaint. I guess they are part of that evil European Protectionism too? You fucking idiot.
Clever signature text goes here.
But without those antitrust laws IBM could have killed MS right away and they would never have made any of the products you seem so enamored of. You do know IBM was under antitrust restrictions at the time, right?
I seem to recall it was IBM who came knocking at Microsoft's door.
No, it's saying they have to improve their product in a competitive fashion.
But they _can't_, because they are hamstrung by *not being allowed* to implement equivalent (or better) functionality as their competitors. Competitors integrate a browser into their platform ? Sorry, "pre-existing market". Competitors include media playback capability ? Sorry, "pre-existing market". Competitors integrate search into their UI ? Sorry, "pre-existing market". Competitors include backup software ? Sorry, "pre-existing market".
But lets cut the crap. You think you can do better? What's your proposal. Would you just get rid of all antitrust laws? Would you modify them in some way. What's your alternative proposal?
Clearly, the idea and definition of a "pre-existing market" needs to be examined. The idea that - even with their customers clamouring for some feature, and every other platform including and integrating it - Microsoft aren't allowed to implement it (therefore punishing their userbase for choosing their product) because somebody, somewhere, had already written a program to do something similar, is fundamentally broken and utterly anti-innovation and anti-customer.
It's the same thing as patent trolling - come up with some vague and obvious idea, wait for someone else sufficiently large to come up with the same thing, then sue them.
That's your unsupported assertion, not mine.
Then perhaps you could identify some of the features added to Windows since, say, 1996 that _wouldn't_ class as an antitrust violation.
No forcing MS out of being able to ignore customers brings about innovation and competition.
You are begging the question.
Right then. I asked for a counter proposal. How would you fix antitrust law so it conforms with your economic and legal beliefs?
It's quite clear that your opinion is that the law should be punishing anyone who uses Windows and therefore, by proxy, Microsoft. You want to make it so expensive and difficult to use Windows, that people are forced to move to alternatives. *My* argument is that your position is reprehensible, that it's economically a broken window fallacy, and that a legal system supporting it is broken.
I seem to recall it was IBM who came knocking at Microsoft's door.
So, what does that have to do with it?
No, it's saying they have to improve their product in a competitive fashion.
But they _can't_, because they are hamstrung by *not being allowed* to implement equivalent (or better) functionality as their competitors.
They're hamstrung and can't compete when they're forced to implement things the same way as competitors? Their competitors can't bundle things with Windows either. That's the point. Because no one can, including MS, there is a competitive market for all the add ons and consumers decide based upon the merits of the product, rather than going with the one they're forced to pay for when they buy Windows.
Competitors integrate a browser into their platform ?
There aren't any viable competitors! That's the point. Apple doesn't license their OS into the market because there is no way to compete with a monopoly. Linux accounts for what 1%? And you think MS needs help in the desktop OS market? Apple sells complete systems and compete against Dell and HP. MS has won the desktop OS market and is in no danger of losing it. The markets that are in danger are any MS tries to take over using their desktop OS monopoly. That's why the law says they can't leverage that monopoly into new markets, like Web browsers, because other companies can't bundle their browsers with Windows and win regardless of the merits of said browser. Why are you so opposed to MS having to make a better product in order to win a market? Why is that so abhorrent to you?
Competitors integrate search into their UI
There aren't any fucking competitors in the desktop OS market. HP is going to license Windows for inclusion on their desktops whether it has search or not. If MS wants to include it, all they have to do is make Windows modular and create a module for search. Then they can market it against anyone else who wants to do the same when selling computers to Dell or whoever. They won't automatically win in the search plug-in market, but a good product will emerge, probably better than what happens on other systems because of competition.
But lets cut the crap. You think you can do better? What's your proposal. Would you just get rid of all antitrust laws? Would you modify them in some way. What's your alternative proposal?
Clearly, the idea and definition of a "pre-existing market" needs to be examined. The idea that - even with their customers clamouring for some feature, and every other platform including and integrating it - Microsoft aren't allowed to implement it (therefore punishing their userbase for choosing their product) because somebody, somewhere, had already written a program to do something similar, is fundamentally broken and utterly anti-innovation and anti-customer.
Antitrust law uses market because that is what economics works on. Are you proposing changing the definition to "features" which you provide no definition for? Remember anything you change has to apply to all antitrust issues going forward including to the way the economy adapts to new things. Is a telephone a feature of a telephone system? Does that mean according to your new proposal AT&T should still be forcing us all to rent our home telephones since it would not be illegal for them to bundle them with your service? And does that mean they should be able to ban all VoIP applications, since that is no longer a competitive issue?
It's the same thing as patent trolling - come up with some vague and obvious idea, wait for someone else sufficiently large to come up with the same thing, then sue them.
No it isn't since you have to be running a business profiting from a product of it to be an antitrust issue. With Patent trolls, they just register a patent with no
So, what does that have to do with it?
It means that if IBM wanted to "destroy" Microsoft, all they would have had to do is *not* go knocking at their door.
I'm also kind of curious about how you think IBM could have used anti-competitive measures against Microsoft, given they weren't competing with anything until it was already too late.
They're hamstrung and can't compete when they're forced to implement things the same way as competitors? Their competitors can't bundle things with Windows either.
Newsflash. Microsoft aren't the only OS vendors out there. No matter what you, or anyone else might think, people *do* make purchasing decisions based on the OS (though the largest part of this decision is - at least historically - usually due to the applications).
That's the point. Because no one can, including MS, there is a competitive market for all the add ons and consumers decide based upon the merits of the product, rather than going with the one they're forced to pay for when they buy Windows.
No-one is "forced to pay" for functionality that is standard. It's like arguing people are "forced to pay" for the seatbelts and headlights their car comes with.
There aren't any viable competitors! That's the point.
There are. End users choose between different OSes.
Apple doesn't license their OS into the market because there is no way to compete with a monopoly.
No, they don't license their OS because they don't want to. Apple has demonstrated amply that they can compete with Microsoft, have run numerous advertising campaigns based around it, and have expanded their marketshare considerably in the last few years by getting people to switch from Windows to OS X.
Linux accounts for what 1%? And you think MS needs help in the desktop OS market?
At no stage have I suggested that they "need help". I have merely argued that their customers should not be disadvantaged by crippling their ability to improve their product either on par with, or in excess of, the alternatives.
"Not harming" and "helping" are not synonyms.
Apple sells complete systems and compete against Dell and HP.
Dell and HP sell commodity appliances. It's Windows the end users want, they couldn't give two hoots about which vendor happens to be providing the hardware it runs on this week.
MS has won the desktop OS market and is in no danger of losing it. The markets that are in danger are any MS tries to take over using their desktop OS monopoly.
The "markets" that are in danger are the ones where the basic functionality become so ubiquitous that customers demand it become "standard", and the vendors there are unable to provide a compelling alternative by improving their product to make it better than the "standard".
That's why the law says they can't leverage that monopoly into new markets, like Web browsers, because other companies can't bundle their browsers with Windows and win regardless of the merits of said browser.
Browsers have never been a meaningful independent market and have nearly _always_ been used as part of a larger strategy involving other products. Added to which, IE displaced Navigator by being better.
Why are you so opposed to MS having to make a better product in order to win a market? Why is that so abhorrent to you?
It's not. At all. But your argument is a straw man not only because it misrepresents my position, but because in nearly every case (and certainly the high profile ones under discussion here - browsers, media players) Microsoft *have* won the market by providing the better product.
There aren't any fucking competitors in the desktop OS market. HP is going to license Windows for inclusion on their desktops whether it has search or not.
But customers may choose not to buy Windows - and by extension HP computers - dependent on whether it has Search, or a fancy back
Windows ftp.exe can scripted to download browsers, easy.
If wget is too GPL or something.
The best and most fair solution should be
to include all browsers on the Windows CD and
choose during or just after Windows Install.
There should also be allowed to Install/Uninstall
whatever browser they like at any time.
(Yes including truly Uninstalling IE)
A bigger problem is in what order are these chioces :O
presented. The one on the top-left will get almost all
clicks even if it's Lynx or something
Typical unique American blend of ignorance and arrogance; because that 'Buy American' policy of Obama's isn't protectionism at all! Get your own house in order before -- wrongly -- criticising others.
Obama is not protectionism -enough-. The proof of free trade is in the trade deficit. right now, everyone on the planet earth dumps their manufactured goods into the USA and, even worse, whines when doing so might cause the dollar to fall.
Free trade is a total failure. Europeans can't negotiate in good faith, and neither can the rest of the world.
This is my sig.
Typical unique American blend of ignorance and arrogance;
If you Europeans are so fucking great, why do have to have the right to export to American markets, or have any sort of an alliance with the United States. Frankly, I could care less if Vladimir Putin started raining nukes on Europe tomorrow. Europeans have money and you can provide for you own economy and your own security. You don't need America, and we Americans certainly do not need you. Europeans are just a dying culture and the USA has to get that millstone off of its head.
This is my sig.
What a complete and utter FAILURE.
Your argument is still that antitrust law is wrong, but you still demonstrate you don't even understand what it is. You don't understand economics enough to know what the markets and customers involved are or why antitrust law restricts leveraging one into another. You're hopeless. Frankly, I think you're a moron. You want to argue an issue, but you're too lazy or too stupid to understand the issue first and you just want to argue without bothering to comprehend when I try to provide you with an understanding. Your mind is made up and knowing what the hell you're talking about isn't going change it. I don't see any point in continuing to discuss things with you, since all you will do is continue to miscomprehend and try to find ways to argue without understanding anything I say.
You say antitrust law is wrong in what it is doing to MS. You don't understand why it is doing that. You don't have any suggestions for what antitrust law should do differently because you don't understand what it is doing now or why. You don't understand the underlying economics and so can't even begin to understand the reasons. You don't bother looking into the history so you don't see what happened before we had these laws and why they exist. So what good are you?