Slashdot Mirror
The MS vs. DOJ case arguments end
BlackICE writes "Ding dong the witch is dead-The trial portion of the case is over, and now both sides will have about a month to prepare closing statements. Expert opinion seems to be that the government will win, but what the final outcome will be in terms of reforms or injunctions is still up in the air. " Reports have also been hinting at settlement talks as well - maybe that will get everything over with sooner. Of course, following this comes the appeals, so my kids should be somewhere in grad school by the time this really finishes.
No matter how the case ends, it's caused huge changes since the day it was filed. As the article points out:
"Microsoft has already changed its behavior," Kovacic said. "They've backed off some of the contested practices. Their competitors have been emboldened to do things they may not have done before the trial. The government has gotten a lot of what they wanted. The company is not swinging away like they used to."
Corel's CEO, for example, has described the anti-trust trial as creating a window of opportunity that allowed Microsoft competitors to push onto the Linux platform without fear of retaliation. And perhaps most importantly, the trial has educated the public to Microsoft's tactics. The public no longer takes it for granted that Microsoft products are best, or that Microsoft controls the future of computing.
Personally, I hope the trial lasts another 20 years. As a lawyer, my recurring fantasy is that Judge Jackson will find Microsoft in violation of the anti-trust laws, then take another year or two of proceedings to decide what to do about it, which is entirely possible.
With a violation ruling in place, the sharks can unload on Microsoft in follow-on cases, where Microsoft's violation will be taken as established as a matter of law (through a little-known provision of the Clayton Act), leaving only the amount of damages to be decided in those cases.
Decades from now, I suspect the legal historians will regard as Microsoft's biggest mistake the decision to butt heads with the government rather than cut a deal early on. The Clayton Act's provision requiring the violation to be taken as established in other cases kicked in the moment the trial itself started. From that point on, not even a settlement could get Microsoft out from under that requirement.
pem@televar.com
There is a difference between "predatory pricing", and free software, and I think you are falling into the trap of being confused about this.
/choice/ .
Linux is free as in freedom of speech (and free as in price). Linux is not owned by a monolithic company that has tried it's damndest over the last decade or so to foist it's garbage onto the world as THE one and only True Standard. The Linux community is not bullying the IBM's, Compaq's, Dell's, etc. by threatening them with OEM sales price increases. The Linux community is offering these companies liberation from that Redmond company's stranglehold. We aren't forcing IBM to adopt Linux - the IBM's etc. of this world are doing this - yes, for commercial reasons (they are a company after all) - but also because they have been given this
No one - be they governor, lawyer, or any other official in power could in their wildest imaginations be able to justify a statement to the effect that Linux is introducing "predatory pricing" to cut off all other competition - how could they?
This IS the system. We protect corporations with intellectual property and copyrights. For that protection, we expect companies to play by certain rules. Breaking those rules has consequences.
There is no such thing anymore as a true free market in a successful capitalist country. We have a command/control economy, just like every other successful "free" nation in the world.
Having a monopoly in and on of itself is not illegal. Trying to be more profitable is not illegal. But trying to increase those profits by temporarily taking a loss in order to kill out all of your competetion IS illegal. 'Accidental' monopolies are fine and just, but taking actions to actively secure that monopoly by killing out all of your competitors is not just... and should never be just. I daresay that without GNU/Linux/FreeBSD/BeOS etc the country as a whole would truly be in a great deal of trouble-- for even if the government takes great action against Microsoft, what other platforms are out there to run programs? And who would want to run one of them?
And no, MacOS doesn't count. It can't run on our machines.
OK, I'm in.
Whoa there. There is a different (as many other posters here have kindly pointed out) between the ways that different corporations can maintain and improve their market share. Remember, it's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it is illegal to gain monopoly power by illegal means, or to use monopoly power (even if acquired legally) to act in restraint of trade. With that in mind, let's consider some legal ways for companies to increase market share:
Here are some illegal ways:
I'll admit that the anti-trust laws are not the most clear-cut in terms of what is legal and what is illegal. This made sense when the laws were drafted, because markets can change rapidly and we don't want to rewrite large laws like this every year to take into account market changes and entirely new markets. Like many other laws, the question is ultimately the intent of Microsoft, and I don't think anyone at this point can argue that Microsoft's intent was only to have a good, clean competition and provide the best products for their customers.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I'm as happy as most Slashdotters at the thought that Microsoft might get slapped on the wrist, but contain your enthusiasm, guys - years down the road, you could be next.
Imagine it's 2008 and everyone uses Linux, which is free (as in beer). Imagine some entrepreneur raising a case that this "predatory pricing" prevents him developing a new OS and narrows consumer choice. Some bureaucrat might just go for it... and once again we'd have know-nothing governmental noses in our world.
I'm no coder, just an end-user who's switching to Linux because I finally got tired of the proprietary brittleness of Microsoft's stuff. (With a lot of pain, of course, but with gain too.) Government action against Microsoft isn't the answer to anything. The answer is to LET the Microsofts make their billions - let them become fat, stodgy and arrogant. Because this sows the seeds of their own destruction. Resulting in their ideal target buyers, guys like me, becoming dissatisfied and escaping when smarter, more creative people build something like Linux. And the Microsofts start to die.
In a webbed world, top-down government is unnecessary, and relying on it to "solve" our problems just perpetuates this outmoded system known as politics. Let's hope it's not many more years before the mass of people realise this, and strip back governments worldwide into the minimal scraps of social plumbing they should be.
- Read fiction at www.espressostories.com
Well, Microworkz, as a result of this trial, has appeared on the low end market selling competitors to Microsoft, and Microsoft can't do much of anything to stop it. The reasons are the same that IBM faced when it lost it's computer monopoly. Soon, it won't just be the wealthy who can put together enough money for a computer, we will be seeing them sold for $300 and $200 dollars.
Bullocks, you say. No bullocks. Since Microsoft can no longer enforce its monopoly through dirty tactics, as that would cause it too much grief at the trial, new competitors, like Linux, BeOS, and the hardware manufacturers who sell them have all benefitted. It's surprising Apple hasn't regained more market share than what it did with the imac.
What makes this possible? Well, the simple answer is the two biggest bullies, the Government and Microsoft, are duelling, and doing it on the Governements terf. I'm not predicting a first round knock-out, in fact, no knock-out at all. But while Microsoft's legal (bully) department is locked up in the trial, that's less time to make mayhem for the competitors. That they bribed Richard Shmaleese with $200,000 and forged tapes, and even continued some "questionable" tactics while the trial was going on, all hurt the case. Microsoft doesn't want to lose the case, but it also can't win it unless they stop bullying people around, thus losing market share. The biggest effect of the trial, in America's messed-up justice system, is the fear of losing everything t o sustain the trial itself.
Also, since Microsoft's pathetic Operating Systems took up WAYYY too much CPU for what it did (which was always Window's biggest disadvantage) better OS systems like Linux and BeOS can easily make affordable boxes for the rest of us. And without having to pay an arm and a leg to get it.
-Ben
Well, monopolies per se are not illegal. Microsoft is not in court because it is a monopoly, it is in court because it abused its market power.
Legal: Crushing your competitors and establishing an unassailable strategic position though better products, service, distribution and aggressive pricing (provided you make a profit).
Illegal: Crushing your products by threatening their distribution channels with retribution, effectively "cutting off their air supply.". Using your monopoly position to scare off potential customers with vaporware. Buying the competitors is also a no no.
Really, it's not asking too much, IMO. The law simply requires that you don't do things expressly for the purpose of cutting off your customers' access to competitors; the customers must be free to decide what is the best product for them.
The "free market" is not some kind of a benevolent god put there for our protection; it is simply a computational mechanism for setting prices and distributing resources. Like any other mechanism, it only works when used within certain parameters. That is to say, the market only operates freely when its users are constrained to work within its operating limits (example: forming a cartel damages market operation). Saying DOJ should back off of Microsoft is like some DOS weenie saying that you are limiting his programming freedom by not allowing him to write into another program's address space. Literally, it is true, but nobody with any sense really wants to live in a world like that. A good operating system shoots down proesses that misbehave, for the good of the other processes on the system, and for the ultimate good of the users and programmers of the misbegotten process.
To say that the "free market has a nice way of settling this stuff out" is naive because the "stuff" in question damages the operatoin of the free market.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
1) Microsoft did, in fact, produce Windows.
2) The Sun rises in the east. Or is that the west? In either case, it makes Java.
3) Bill Gates is a gigantic prick. But hey, so is everyone else in the biz. Go Woz!
4) If you're a high executive at a major corporation, it's a good idea not to write emails with any meaningful content. Ever.
5) OJ did it.
6) Corporate types in the computer biz are like corporate types everywhere else. Cute and cuddly!
7) You will cooperate with the state with the good of the state and for your own survival. Cooperation will be rewarded. Insubordination will be punished. You will be released into society after confessing your crimes. Do you have any heart conditions I should be aware of?
-