Well, actually no one so far disputed the case Microsoft makes. Mullar does:
In response to numerous requests for comments regarding a lawsuit filed against me in Washington, I would like to make the following comments.
I am the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 relating to software anti-piracy technology, and Ancora is my company.
I applied for my patent in 1998. In 2002, the patent issued from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In 2003, I approached Microsoft and had several discussions with a Microsoft lawyer and employees of Microsoftâ(TM)s Anti Piracy group about my invention and the benefits Microsoft could realize by using it. Microsoft declined and said they had no interest in my invention.
After 3 years of working at a start up without salary and benefits, and with a first child about to be born, it was time for me to move on and look for a job to support my family. We ceased business operations at Ancora in 2005, and Microsoft was the first company to extend me an employment offer. I accepted. In early 2006, I moved my family to Seattle from Los Angeles, bought a house and focused on my new career at Microsoft. I enjoyed my job very much, and Microsoft commended my work and even promoted me. When I joined Microsoft, I notified them in writing of Ancora and my patent in both my resume and in my employment agreement. In its complaint against me, Microsoft withheld the portions of these key documents that show this.
At the same time I was employed at Microsoft, but unknown to me, Microsoft was developing what is now known as âoeOEM Activation.â OEM Activation is installed on computers made by HP, Dell, Toshiba and others (called OEMs) to prevent piracy of Microsoftâ(TM)s Windows Vista software installed on those computers. This work was being done in a different department at Microsoft.
Now, I personally find there should not be patents at all. It is a shame to see the defamation campaign of Microsoft. The case shows that the patent system does not have any benefit at all for software. Small inventors cannot enforce them against ruthless big companies:
OEM Activation is a blatant copy of my invention. In fact, the same Microsoft person that I explained my invention to back in 2003 was involved in the development of OEM Activation.
Asus low price, Apple high price. Ehmm, which company manufactures the Apple products for Apple. Only idiots buy products because they cost more.
Asus didn't took Linux but Xandros. Now they are finding out that this wasn't really the best choice. With speed optimiziation and alternative Desktop Environments as LXDE you can create real pressure on XP. Win7 won't be there before 2010 says Microsoft. So expect it to be launched Q1 2011.
the Commission sets out evidence and outlines its preliminary conclusion that Microsoftâ(TM)s tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice.
The SO is based on the legal and economic principles established in the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2007 (case T-201/04), in which the Court of First Instance upheld the Commission's decision of March 2004 (see IP/04/382), finding that Microsoft had abused its dominant position in the PC operating system market by tying Windows Media Player to its Windows PC operating system (see MEMO/07/359).
The evidence gathered during the investigation leads the Commission to believe that the tying of Internet Explorer with Windows, which makes Internet Explorer available on 90% of the world's PCs, distorts competition on the merits between competing web browsers insofar as it provides Internet Explorer with an artificial distribution advantage which other web browsers are unable to match. The Commission is concerned that through the tying, Microsoft shields Internet Explorer from head to head competition with other browsers which is detrimental to the pace of product innovation and to the quality of products which consumers ultimately obtain. In addition, the Commission is concerned that the ubiquity of Internet Explorer creates artificial incentives for content providers and software developers to design websites or software primarily for Internet Explorer which ultimately risks undermining competition and innovation in the provision of services to consumers.
Microsoft has 8 weeks to reply the SO, and will then have the right to be heard in an Oral Hearing should it wish to do so. If the preliminary views expressed in the SO are confirmed, the Commission may impose a fine on Microsoft, require Microsoft to cease the abuse and impose a remedy that would restore genuine consumer choice and enable competition on the merits.
Additionally it basically means to channel some money into Linux development to lower the desktop dependencies of Russian consumers and become a Gorilla in the Linux support business.
* A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over time.
* The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organization, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties.
* The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute, and use it freely.
* The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.
* There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.
The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of products based on the standard.
Yes. But the browser wars are over. So the case is about the struggle for reparations and the unconditional surrender.
In fact Opera was just upset about Open XML in Norway and the fact that Microsoft attacked open standards policies in the EU, the W3C and Norway. So they made a simple complaint that found the heel of Achileus. And the Commission says thanks, let's go for it.
We have different outcomes. The most simple one is that Microsoft complies with unbundling for Windows7 and as a political gift abandons its open standards subversion. That is what a sane party would do and basically agree with the Commission to not dig into the past.
The insane, the Microsoft response will be to go ballistic, go political and blow the whole case up, campaign against the EU and annoy everyone once again. Then it will become quite interesting because the Commission is now far more experienced.
Whatever road they chose, it would be great, great fun and there is nothing to lose for Brussels.
If the browser complies with open standards there should not be any problem. The lock-ins you describe are the results of the bundling. The competition case goes back to 1996.
Opera has been involved in standardisation for ages. They always complained that Internet Explorer did not fully comply with open standards. The lack of competition and standard compliance undermined their business because when you get web sites that just work with IE you are out as a small browser company. Opera was always supportive of Firefox because they saw it as a means to put competitive pressure on Microsoft to comply with standards.
It is not too difficult for Microsoft to comply. IE does not generate profit anyway. But they can also escalate their compliance once again. In the end the case will promote a more competitive environement and use of open standards.
Opera's management is a true believer in open standards and against software patents.
Opera was pissed by the way Microsoft pressured for its Open XML format in the standard body of Norway. So they launched an antitrust complaint against the company which at the time looked more like a media stunt without teeth.
Also in the competition law scene the political intervention in the DOJ 2002 case left a very bitter taste. Now Bush is gone. The same applies to the non-compliance with the previous EU ruling, where compliance was delayed and delayed and delayed. No fine could make them comply. Even after the European court ruling which made Microsoft lose big it was still possible that Microsoft artificilly prolonged the case and appealed. So Kroes secured a bitter deal. If you screw up competition authorities they fight back.
The investigation about the Opera complaint goes back to 1996, so actually the EU takes on the corps in the basement.
Well, Opera is run by an entrepreneur and an engineer culture, they actually do have values.
As of Microsoft, the company is special and does not adapt to a European legal situation very well. It is time for them to comply with open standards, leave keep distance regarding the political process of foreign democracies rather than to aggressively intervene.
Absolutely nothing. The problem is that Opera is abusing anti-competition laws in the EU. The intent of anti-monopoly/trust/competition laws is to protect individual consumers, not to give companies a government-enforced weapon to bash each other over the heads with.
That is factually wrong. Competition law of course serves consumer interests as 'perfect competition' is an ideal but it is competitors which always file these complaints. We know that the IE market share is just because of bundling, not because the product is superior. Microsoft abuses one monopoly to get a second one. That is illegal. As a competitor you can simply ignore the unfair disadvantage or you file an antitrust complaint that will be decided on legal grounds. Danger ahead for Microsoft: The burned soil in Brussels.
First, enforcing these gray-area "anti-competition" laws puts the EU in the position of having to decide the optimal amount of "competition" in the market in a given industry.
No the purpose of the laws is to promote competition as perfect competition is a desirable state of the market. If laissez-faire does not create a free market the authorities intervene to improve things. In fact they intervene very little. Microsoft can have its OS monopoly but they cannot abuse it.
They also, implicitly, then have to make decisions about what is a "fair" amount of market share for a particular company, for a particular product line. It becomes a situation where they're like the "cosmic fairness arbiter," and companies petition them for favors. Entrenched bureaucracy, untouchable by voters, results in corruption.
Learn the basics of competition law and market economics. Or have a look at what Ordoliberalism means.
Second, the assumption is made that lost revenue for Microsoft translates directly into "more jobs for the rest of us" (somehow). It doesn't, and here's why. Some of that lost revenue is going to be the fact that Microsoft has to expend resources to comply with EU rulings - they're going to have to spend developer time altering software, dealing with EU trustees, etc. That's just resources down the drain. Nobody benefits from that.
Your are joking.
Now, if the EU rulings result in an artificial shifting of market share away from Microsoft to other companies, consumers only benefit if those resources flow to a competitor who creates value more efficiently than Microsoft.
All the Comission wants is that consumers self-select what is the best browser for them. Sounds reasonable to me.
Ignoring mindless MS-bashing ("DUURR - M$ is soo inefficient."), I don't think that anyone could legitimately make the blanket statement that "all software development companies that compete with Microsoft in this product line are more efficient than Microsoft."
Efficiency of development is not the issue here but of course competition also stimulates standard compliance.
The key thing to remember is that anti-monopoly/trust/competition laws are there to benefit individual people, not other companies. Opera's pretense that they just want "more competition" is hypocritical. They don't want "more competition," they want less of it from Microsoft.
Actually all that Opera wants is Microsoft to behave and embrace open standards. You know that the complaint was a response to what Microsoft did with Open XML.
They want more money. There's nothing wrong about that, but abusing laws intended to benefit consumers is not an OK way to go about it.
Well, the fact that you get a product as IE preinstalled artificially destroyed the market for webbrowsers.
Part of the consent decree that Microsoft agreed to with the DoJ was that they would not retaliate against any OEM that chose to install an alternative browser.
Just that DOJ deals do not apply to the European markets and the DOJ compliance review of the deal didn't look pretty good. So the Europeans can simply do that and no American administration would intervene because the US demands the very same. Despite that the Europeans can get a better deal.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, actually no one so far disputed the case Microsoft makes. Mullar does:
Now, I personally find there should not be patents at all. It is a shame to see the defamation campaign of Microsoft. The case shows that the patent system does not have any benefit at all for software. Small inventors cannot enforce them against ruthless big companies:
Asus low price, Apple high price. Ehmm, which company manufactures the Apple products for Apple. Only idiots buy products because they cost more.
Asus didn't took Linux but Xandros. Now they are finding out that this wasn't really the best choice. With speed optimiziation and alternative Desktop Environments as LXDE you can create real pressure on XP. Win7 won't be there before 2010 says Microsoft. So expect it to be launched Q1 2011.
The musing about IE is off topic but why don't you actually read the Commission's press release:
the Commission sets out evidence and outlines its preliminary conclusion that Microsoftâ(TM)s tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Additionally it basically means to channel some money into Linux development to lower the desktop dependencies of Russian consumers and become a Gorilla in the Linux support business.
And what about their political games in foreign nations?
Maybe they filed the complaint?
This is what a SAMBA core developer has to say.
Of course it still is, ask your antitrust authorities.
Try LXDE.
Opera is solving the problem via the EU.
So what is the beaf?
You can provide multiple streams, this is no technological problem.
cool
Yes. But the browser wars are over. So the case is about the struggle for reparations and the unconditional surrender.
In fact Opera was just upset about Open XML in Norway and the fact that Microsoft attacked open standards policies in the EU, the W3C and Norway. So they made a simple complaint that found the heel of Achileus. And the Commission says thanks, let's go for it.
We have different outcomes. The most simple one is that Microsoft complies with unbundling for Windows7 and as a political gift abandons its open standards subversion. That is what a sane party would do and basically agree with the Commission to not dig into the past.
The insane, the Microsoft response will be to go ballistic, go political and blow the whole case up, campaign against the EU and annoy everyone once again. Then it will become quite interesting because the Commission is now far more experienced.
Whatever road they chose, it would be great, great fun and there is nothing to lose for Brussels.
The objective of these policies is the creation of - at least - contestable monopolies.
If the browser complies with open standards there should not be any problem. The lock-ins you describe are the results of the bundling. The competition case goes back to 1996.
Opera has been involved in standardisation for ages. They always complained that Internet Explorer did not fully comply with open standards. The lack of competition and standard compliance undermined their business because when you get web sites that just work with IE you are out as a small browser company. Opera was always supportive of Firefox because they saw it as a means to put competitive pressure on Microsoft to comply with standards.
It is not too difficult for Microsoft to comply. IE does not generate profit anyway. But they can also escalate their compliance once again. In the end the case will promote a more competitive environement and use of open standards.
Opera's management is a true believer in open standards and against software patents.
Opera was pissed by the way Microsoft pressured for its Open XML format in the standard body of Norway. So they launched an antitrust complaint against the company which at the time looked more like a media stunt without teeth.
Also in the competition law scene the political intervention in the DOJ 2002 case left a very bitter taste. Now Bush is gone. The same applies to the non-compliance with the previous EU ruling, where compliance was delayed and delayed and delayed. No fine could make them comply. Even after the European court ruling which made Microsoft lose big it was still possible that Microsoft artificilly prolonged the case and appealed. So Kroes secured a bitter deal. If you screw up competition authorities they fight back.
The investigation about the Opera complaint goes back to 1996, so actually the EU takes on the corps in the basement.
The OEMs can bundle a web browser auf their choice.
Honestly if users would not get IE preinstalled what browser would they want to use.
Having a more level playing field will benefit consumers, promote innovation and finally get all vendors to comply with open standards.
In other words such a ruling would benefit all of us.
Well, Opera is run by an entrepreneur and an engineer culture, they actually do have values.
As of Microsoft, the company is special and does not adapt to a European legal situation very well. It is time for them to comply with open standards, leave keep distance regarding the political process of foreign democracies rather than to aggressively intervene.
Leave it to the merits of a standard to win.
Absolutely nothing. The problem is that Opera is abusing anti-competition laws in the EU. The intent of anti-monopoly/trust/competition laws is to protect individual consumers, not to give companies a government-enforced weapon to bash each other over the heads with.
That is factually wrong. Competition law of course serves consumer interests as 'perfect competition' is an ideal but it is competitors which always file these complaints. We know that the IE market share is just because of bundling, not because the product is superior. Microsoft abuses one monopoly to get a second one. That is illegal. As a competitor you can simply ignore the unfair disadvantage or you file an antitrust complaint that will be decided on legal grounds. Danger ahead for Microsoft: The burned soil in Brussels.
No the purpose of the laws is to promote competition as perfect competition is a desirable state of the market. If laissez-faire does not create a free market the authorities intervene to improve things. In fact they intervene very little. Microsoft can have its OS monopoly but they cannot abuse it.
Learn the basics of competition law and market economics. Or have a look at what Ordoliberalism means.
Your are joking.
All the Comission wants is that consumers self-select what is the best browser for them. Sounds reasonable to me.
Efficiency of development is not the issue here but of course competition also stimulates standard compliance.
Actually all that Opera wants is Microsoft to behave and embrace open standards. You know that the complaint was a response to what Microsoft did with Open XML.
Well, the fact that you get a product as IE preinstalled artificially destroyed the market for webbrowsers.
What is wrong about making money as a company.
You probably should learn about free market economics.
Part of the consent decree that Microsoft agreed to with the DoJ was that they would not retaliate against any OEM that chose to install an alternative browser.
Just that DOJ deals do not apply to the European markets and the DOJ compliance review of the deal didn't look pretty good. So the Europeans can simply do that and no American administration would intervene because the US demands the very same. Despite that the Europeans can get a better deal.
You should have told him that they should launch a Linux migration plan or a study on platform independence to get even better discounts.