backtop

Print 93 comment(s) - last by TomZ.. on Apr 2 at 10:24 PM
Microsoft is meeting with the EU to try and save the company from $2.4 million in daily fines

Microsoft is hoping to avoid heavy fines from the European Union by defending itself during a two-day hearing about its delay of not sharing software code with rivals.  The company faces a $2.4 million daily fine if the EU decides to levy the fines.  After the first day of the hearing yesterday, Microsoft said that it is optimistic that it will be able to avoid the daily fine.  The EU still believes that Microsoft hasn't met the terms of an antitrust order that forced the company to share information with rivals two years ago.  MarketWatch reports:

During the hearing's first day, the independent trustee monitoring the case went through a detailed presentation of his difficulties in using Microsoft's instructions for rivals on how to integrate its programs, according to people attending. Microsoft responded that it has done more than enough to comply with E.U. orders and is willing to make further concessions.

Software producers from companies like Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Novell and IBM will speak during the second day of the hearing today to show proof that Microsoft hasn't done enough.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Ridiculous
By Rapsven on 3/31/2006 1:03:29 PM , Rating: 3
Why should Microsoft be obligated to share code with its rivals?




RE: Ridiculous
By Phynaz on 3/31/2006 1:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
They don't have to give others code.

There are supposed to competely document their protocols and interfaces.

DT, as usual, got the news item wrong. Pretty hard to do when none of it is original content to begin with.


RE: Ridiculous
By Scorpion on 3/31/2006 1:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
What I still don't understand though, is there are many proprietary protocols that don't have documented interfaces. RealMedia for example? I believe everything had to be reverse engineered in order to run Real content in something other than RealPlayer. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So why is Microsoft being forced to give out this information when a lot of other businesses don't?

I'm not Pro-Microsoft at all, but to a certain degree I disagree with the EU's decision. If Apple were to start building most everyday features and programs into their OS or bundle them without any documentation as to how to interface with it or bypass it with some other program, no one would care. So why don't the governments just get to the point and call Microsoft a Monopoly?

It seems to me that last I recall no one was required to disclose all of their proprietary code, and people are allowed to build proprietary systems without documentations as to what's inside. A black box so to speak. Just get to the point (Microsoft is a monopoly) and quit dancing around the issue.


RE: Ridiculous
By rcsteiner on 3/31/2006 1:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
So why is Microsoft being forced to give out this information when a lot of other businesses don't?

Because the EU has ruled them a monopoly and ruled that the lack of documentation regarding various protocols is causing harm in the market.

So why don't the governments just get to the point and call Microsoft a Monopoly?

Uh -- they have already:

http://swpat.ffii.org/lisri/04/cec ms0202/index.en....

Why aren't readers here keeping yup with the news? The EU ruling happened ALMOST FOUR YEARS AGO!!!


RE: Ridiculous
By Scorpion on 3/31/2006 2:09:57 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah you're right. I'm misinformed. On this one issue.

I was under the impression that the EU did what we did here in the US, try to slap MS on the wrist, but not going so far as to calling them a Monopoly. Well they went so far as to call them a monopoly and I'm glad.

Forgive my ignorance.


RE: Ridiculous
By TomZ on 3/31/2006 2:35:54 PM , Rating: 4
OK, fine - the EU has labeled Microsoft a monopoly. What does that mean.

Let me start by saying that consumers decided to make Microsoft a monopoly by choosing to purchase Microsoft products. Nobody made them do it. Their monopoly status was not handed to them from a government, such as in the case in the U.S. with many utilities - cable TV, gas, electric, phone, etc. in many parts of the country.

Microsoft probably did leverage their market share to get more (something most businesses do, by the way), and they should be directed to stop of course when they break the law. But this doesn't change the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly of choice. At any time, people can (and do) choose to not purchase anything more from Microsoft. In this case, I think that prosectution of such a monopoly, or giving them special rules like that they have to disclose source code and/or document all their interfaces is totally wrong. Why should they have to comply with rules/laws that would not apply to another company doing the same thing that has less market share? Why should they have to give away their IP? Who developed and paid for these interfaces? Why should they be given away to their competitors for free? Why is it right that the government forces Microsoft to give away that which rightly belongs to it? Why do they feel that society has a "right" to Microsoft's intellectual property, just because they have the majority of market share?

Finally, what "harm" has been done? The harm has been done to competitors that did not do as good a job as Microsoft. How did consumers get "harmed"? Look at the value that Microsoft software has contributed to both individuals and businesses all through the years. People knew about the value of the software, and made the purchase decisions. They could have chosen to purchase other software. Nobody held a gun to their head and told them they had to. Years later after having chosen to buy the software, and received the benefits of it, now some people decide they don't like the outcome (a big corporation), and try to find ways to take it apart? That is just crazy in my optinion.

These decisions by the EU are just part of a socialist agenda designed to more equally distribute wealth amongst its citizens. All the claims of "harm" and "monopoly" are just rationalizations for these governments to do what they think is right. Microsoft of course has to play along, and will do what it can to minimize its exposure. I think this sitation needs to considered in this overall context.


RE: Ridiculous
By Phynaz on 3/31/2006 2:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
Nice post.


RE: Ridiculous
By smitty3268 on 3/31/06, Rating: 0
RE: Ridiculous
By TomZ on 3/31/2006 3:00:38 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
After a few years, there is no difference between a "monopoly of choice" and a regular monopoly. The free market is destroyed either way, and consumers are harmed by the lack of competition even if they are blissfully ignorant.

No, the difference is that nobody is forcing you to buy Microsoft products. You can buy a Mac, or run Linux on your PC - there are other choices.

Why do "blissfully ignorant" people even have a right to be protected from their own choices?

quote:
As for this being a socialist agenda - hmmm. Actually I'd say it is more capitalist

I don't think that the government taking property from one company and giving it to another company, under threat of law, would fall into the views of any capitalist.


RE: Ridiculous
By Lifted on 3/31/06, Rating: 0
RE: Ridiculous
By Lifted on 3/31/2006 4:04:57 PM , Rating: 1
Ouch, forgot to prview. Anyway...


quote:

No, the difference is that nobody is forcing you to buy Microsoft products. You can buy a Mac, or run Linux on your PC - there are other choices.

Why do "blissfully ignorant" people even have a right to be protected from their own choices?



Most businesses and consumers are tied to Microsoft OS's on the desktop (and server) for many reasons. This in and of itself is not a problem, the problem starts when Microsoft abuses this power by restricting entry into the software market due to it's control over the OS market.


quote:

don't think that the government taking property from one company and giving it to another company, under threat of law, would fall into the views of any capitalist.


The government is not taking anything from Microsoft, they are making them document their OS API's to create a level playing field in the software market. Do you think it would be good for the economy if Microsoft became the sole provider of all software that runs on Windows becuase they decided to remove all outside access to their API's? If this was okay, AT&T would still be the only phone company, and you would have to buy an AT&T phone from them, and only them. Sadly, this is starting to happen again with cell phone's, but that's getting pretty far off topic.


RE: Ridiculous
By Lifted on 3/31/2006 4:05:52 PM , Rating: 1
Attempting fix of open quote.



RE: Ridiculous
By smitty3268 on 3/31/2006 5:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think that the government taking property from one company and giving it to another company, under threat of law, would fall into the views of any capitalist.

Then I would suggest you read some economy textbooks. Capitalists only care about 1 thing - maintaining the free market. Anything, and I mean anything, that helps the free market is what a capitalist likes. And monopolies hurt the free market, so anything that can be done to stop a monopoly is good. This is the very reason monopolies were declared illegal. It wasn't some socialist saying someone is getting too rich. Those laws were put in place by free market economists who saw that capitalism was being threatened.


RE: Ridiculous
By TomZ on 3/31/2006 9:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
This probably depends on the capitalist. While a monopoly might erode free markets, most capitalists are also against government regulation as well.

I don't think that any capitalist would advocate forced turnover of IP (code and/or documentation) by one company to its competitors, especially when the link between providing this information and "correcting the free market" is so weak. The logic there doesn't make sense.

Let's get this straight, EU wants MS to give API information to competitors for Windows server, so that other companies can write apps for Windows server? Exactly what wrong does that right? As I said in another post, MS already has great docs for their APIs. Also, MS does not have a monopoly in severs (far from it). So how does this solve anything?


RE: Ridiculous
By glennpratt on 4/2/2006 2:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it does fall under the capitalist view, because the role of government in a capitalist society is to make sure capitalism works. When a monopoly forms, whatever the reason, capitalism has broken down.

Now, is the EU being unbelievable selective and unfair when targeting MS and not ending other monopolies, like state mandated monopolies? YES.

When anticapitalist policies favor the EU, they will exploit them without hesitating.


RE: Ridiculous
By Merry on 3/31/2006 3:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft is a rare case in which monopoly status is achieved through simply offering better products, however, now it has achieved this status there is a risk that it may start to become increasingly inefficient, to the detriment of the consumer. A monopoly is an example of market failure, something which in a free market economy should, at the very least be regulated to avoid the very economic system from failing, therefore the EU does have a right to bring this case to court in order to protect the consumer.


RE: Ridiculous
By Merry on 3/31/2006 3:44:45 PM , Rating: 1
Microsoft is a rare case in which monopoly status is achieved through simply offering better products, however, now it has achieved this status there is a risk that it may start to become increasingly inefficient, to the detriment of the consumer. A monopoly is an example of market failure, something which in a free market economy should, at the very least be regulated to avoid the very economic system from failing, therefore the EU does have a right to bring this case to court in order to protect the consumer.
I find your views on the EU laughable. It is not some type of socialist conspiracy, indeed, at the very most the EU follows the path of social democracy rather than democratic socialism, the two are fundementally different. Claims of harm and monopoly ARE NOT rationalisations for governments to do whats right, they are fundementally bad for the consumer, and, in the longer term, for the economies of various nations around the globe.


RE: Ridiculous
By Merry on 3/31/2006 3:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
I apologise for posting that twice.


RE: Ridiculous
By TomZ on 3/31/2006 4:14:01 PM , Rating: 4
I think you're wrong about Microsoft. Look at the innovations they put into their recently released VS2005. Why did they do that? They did it because they are in a heated competition with Eclipse, Borland, Oracle, etc.

Look at what they are doing with Vista. Why are they doing that? Because consumers are looking for an OS with more security and more multimedia features. They are doing that in order to avoid losing market share to their competitors, e.g., Apple, Linux, etc.

Look at what they are doing with Office. Some new innovations in usability and new file formats. Why are they doing that? Usability is due to customer feedback and to add more value so that folks will see a good value proposition in upgrading. New file format is clearly to help them compete against Open Office, especially for some government and corporate customers.

Finally, if you look at Microsoft's overall strategy, you will see they have a "siege mentality." They feel they are constantly under attack by Google, Eclipse, Apple, Sony, etc. Therefore, they invest heavily in new development, and work hard to create as much innovation as they can muster.

I don't think any of what I have stated is opinion/objective. It is all well-covered in the trade press.

Now I ask you, does this strategy seem like the behavior of a monopolist harming consumers? It seems to me this is a thriving competitive market, with consumers able to choose from various alternatives, and Microsoft not able to "force" customers to really do anything.

I think what some people don't like about Microsoft is simply their success.


RE: Ridiculous
By Merry on 3/31/2006 5:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
How do you think there are many alternatives to Microsoft? I like playing certain games such as Battlefield 2 and also need to use VB6, therefore, do I have any choice over which OS I use? Trust me if there was another OS that could do all of the above (and other things I havent stated) then I would me using it. Your arguement is fatally flawed.
I never described microsoft as being fundementally 'x inefficent' at the current time, however if it maintains its current position it may be some years down the line. This is why it needs some form of regulation NOW to stop this.


RE: Ridiculous
By TomZ on 3/31/2006 5:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
Why not choose a different game that doesn't require Windows? There are lots to choose from. Why not program in Java, or one of the many other programming environments that is availble for non-Windows?

I see choices everywhere. But mostly what I see is that you choose to use Windows and the apps written for it. You even choose to develop applications that only target Windows. So how are your choices harming you, how has Microsoft forced you into that situation, and what exactly should be done about it?


RE: Ridiculous
By Merry on 3/31/2006 5:45:28 PM , Rating: 2
in short I have been pushed into using windows. What should be done about this? More competition within the OS market.


RE: Ridiculous
By Shadowself on 3/31/2006 4:04:15 PM , Rating: 2
First, you are not understanding that this is not about IP. Absolutely no one is asking Microsoft to give up or disclose any IP. It is not even about desktop systems or even application software.

The issue is about Microsoft's server OS and the APIs associated with it which allow applications to run efficiently on top of Microsoft's server OS.

The EU has ruled that Microsoft is a monopoly. Period. Microsoft is not even trying to fight this issue.

The EU has ruled that because Microsoft is a monopoly it has to create a level playing field for competitors to be able to use Microsoft's server OS.

In order to do this Microsoft must give competitors the same knowledge Microsoft has about HOW TO USE Microsoft's server OS. The EU has simply stated that Microsoft can't have hidden and/or undocumented (or even very poorly documented) APIs which Microsoft can take advantage of internally (Microsoft can use them presumably because Microsoft's programmers wrote them) without competitors being able to use them.

Such hidden or undocumented APIs could make Microsoft's applications run much more efficiently on servers running Microsoft's server OS. People would buy the more efficiently running software from Microsoft and not buy the competitors' software.

The EU has simply ruled that Microsoft must document ALL the APIs that any application running on Microsoft's server OS might use. This would allow Microsoft's competitors to have the same starting point when developing applications as Microsoft. If the competitors used that knowledge and wrote better software they'd sell more than Microsoft. If the competitors used that knowledge and developed crap then Microsoft would sell more software. Without well documented APIs competitors have no chance to compete with Microsoft -- and Microsoft knows this.

Think of it this way ... (purely hypothetical case here)...
Assume company ABC has 95% of the server OS market (i.e., 95% of the servers in a country run ABC's server OS on theim). Also assume company ABC has hidden and undocument APIs in the server OS which allows them to write a database management system (DBMS) for this server OS which is, on average, 50 times faster, and 10 times less crash prone, than any DBMS which does not use these hidden and undocument APIs. How many IT organizations would buy anything but company ABC's DBMS? Damn few, if any. By having hidden and undocument APIs company ABC has utilized its monopoly in the OS segment to effectively force a monopoly in the DBMS segment.

This is what the EU is trying to prevent by forcing Microsoft to properly and clearly document ALL the APIs in its server OS that any competitor might use.

Microsoft has had about two years to provide this documentation. Microsoft has not done so. Microsoft has been repeatedly warned that the fines were coming. Microsoft has repeatedly tried to circumvent the EU system and the EU rulings.

Microsoft just needs to provide clear and understandable documentation on ALL the APIs and move on -- or else start paying more than $2 million per day in fines.


RE: Ridiculous
By TomZ on 3/31/2006 4:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
That's funny. Here are some facts.

1. Microsoft does not have any monopoly in the server OS market. They have about the same market share as Unix, followed by next by Linux (http://news.com.com/Windows+bumps+ Unix+as+top+serv...).

2. Microsoft has common APIs for server and desktop (i.e., Win32, WinFX, etc.). Thousands of companies have been successful in programming to these APIs, delivering applications that are commercially viable for both server and desktop for many years. See the documentation for yourself (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/ ). You don't even have to pay Microsoft for that information.

I can't tell you if Microsoft has "secret" APIs or not, but what I can tell you is that anyone who tells you they can't figure out how to get applications running and running well on Microsoft OSs is feeding you a line of pure BS.


RE: Ridiculous
By Shadowself on 3/31/2006 11:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's funny. Here are some facts.

1. Microsoft does not have any monopoly in the server OS market.


Read my post. I never said the EU claimed MS has a monopoly in the server market. Why are you arguing against a point I never made? Because your position is so weak?

quote:
2. Microsoft has common APIs for server and desktop (i.e., Win32, WinFX, etc.).


Mostly true but NOT even close to 100% true. There are APIs which are specific to the server versions of Windows. ... or are you foolish enough to actually believe there is no difference between the desktop version of Windows and Windows server editions? Are you really one of those people who believes that Windows server OS and Windows desktop OS is identical and MS just changes one byte in the executable to change it from one to the other (thus forcing you to pay more for a "server OS" that supports several hundred users when it is really no different than the desktop OS)? I've met a few of these people and sane discussions with them are impossible.

quote:
I can't tell you if Microsoft has "secret" APIs or not


Well, historically, it has been proven (and well documented) that Microsoft has done this before (back in the mid 90s). There are magazine articles and at least one book which document APIs that MS used internally and kept secret while disclosing other, less optimized, APIs to the rest of the world. I am not saying Microsoft has done this again, but the EU calling for full documentation on all APIs is not claiming there are "hidden" APIs either. Just that MS has to provide clear documentation on ALL of them.

quote:
but what I can tell you is that anyone who tells you they can't figure out how to get applications running and running well on Microsoft OSs is feeding you a line of pure BS.


While personally I'm not a major developer for the Windows server platforms I have some close friends who are -- some sending a few thousand dollars a month to Redmond for the priviledge of doing it. Virtually every one of them complains about how poorly the APIs are documented -- and sometimes they are barely documented at all! I've listened to them for several years complain about how badly things are explained by MS. Often the MS tech support people figure out how things work by working with them while they are on the phone -- sometimes for hours at a time. While sometimes it is a matter of getting things to work most of the time it is a matter of getting things to work well.

Then MS rolls out a patch and breaks everything! This is even though supposedly the patch has absolutely nothing to do with that API and its functions within the operating system. For that aspect alone MS needs to document what things do and how they do them much better than MS is now.

Besides, if these APIs are so clearly documented to the extent that you would claim it's "a line of pure BS" that it is ever difficult to create optimized software using them then why is the EU claiming the current documentation is virtually useless? Why did MS a couple of months ago offer to give the EU commission full access to the source code so that the EU could create the documentation itself? (MS claimed it was to difficult to give full documentation of the APIs in the two years they've had to do it. So they offered to let the EU do it themselves. The EU said, "NO!")


RE: Ridiculous
By TomZ on 4/2/2006 10:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
Your view is coming from the perspective that EU is right in its assertions, e.g., that the server OS has undocumented APIs that don't exist in the desktop. I am saying that I think Microsoft does a great job documenting their APIs in general. I think EU's assertions are very politically motivated, and not really based on facts. I think it is a witch hunt, and they are asking Microsoft for something that does not make sense. I'm sorry, but I have heard too much BS from politicians over the years to think they would have any clue about adequate vs. inadequate API documentation.

Yes, of course APIs are common between desktop and server. That's why we can run all apps on either. Exception is of course that Server 2003 has some new APIs that don't exist in WinXP, because Server 2003 is newer. The difference between desktop and server OSs is in performance characteristics, default component sets installed, and licensing models.

Your stories about your colleagues paying thousands per month (what program is that? thousands per year is more like it), struggling with APIs (I've written Win32 apps for 5-6 years now, rarely any problems with the API), and rolling out a patch that breaks everything. I think your exaggeration is really apparent. There are thousands of Windows apps out there running and being written all day long. How do you think they accomplish that? Magic? If you really believe your assertions, I think you're fooling yourself, and you owe it to yourself to get the truth.


RE: Ridiculous
By TomZ on 3/31/2006 5:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
One more comment. Windows is owned by Microsoft. Microsoft, as its owner, has the right to decide what information it releases relative to the interfaces, period. We, as developers, can decide whether we feel Microsoft has released enought information to decide to invest in developing applications for Microsoft's OS. We, as consumers, can decide whether the OS and applications, are valuable enough to us to purchase.

If a government decides that Microsoft "must" give away certain information regarding its APIs to its competitors or other companies, this is nothing more than state-sanctioned theft. Why does Microsoft "owe" anybody that information?

But in reality, Microsoft has a very strong vested interest in providing very good information about its APIs so that it can entice developers to create applications for its OSs.


RE: Ridiculous
By Shadowself on 3/31/2006 11:33:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, Windows is owned buy Microsoft but that is NOT the point.

No, Microsoft does not have the unilateral right to decide what information it releases relative to Windows.

Microsoft releases the server version of Windows and actively advertises that other companies can write software for it. Then Microsoft does not give adequate documentation to do so.

You claim they don't have to.

This is no different than a car company claiming that the average person can drive one of their cars (with adequate training, of course). Then NOT telling people that pressing the brake and the clutch at the same time during a left hand turn while not using the turning signals will cause the rear brakes to lock up possibly causing the rear end to skid. As you may know, there are some high performance situations where you would want this. However, this could effect could easily be extremely hazardous to the unaware, average driver. Would you say the car manufacturer has no obligation to disclose this "feature"?

When you put products out there and claim they are for use by people you need to supply the necessary information for that use.

If MS claims there are APIs to provide server operating system functionality, it is obligated to provide that documentation.

Besides MS is not "giving away" anything other than proper documentation as to how to use its software. If MS were really interested in other companies doing the best they possibly could, MS would be more than happy to properly document how to use their software!

quote:
But in reality, Microsoft has a very strong vested interest in providing very good information about its APIs so that it can entice developers to create applications for its OSs.


Then why is MS fighting to death to try and NOT do this? Why has MS offered virtually everything BUT this in an effort to try to avoid the fines?


RE: Ridiculous
By BaronMatrix on 3/31/2006 5:47:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Finally, what "harm" has been done? The harm has been done to competitors that did not do as good a job as Microsoft. How did consumers get "harmed"? Look at the value that Microsoft software has contributed to both individuals and businesses all through the years. People knew about the value of the software, and made the purchase decisions. They could have chosen to purchase other software.



Well, look at it this way. How many companies created add-ons for windows 95/98 and how many had them for XP SP2? MS has shut out so many small companies and people who want to start small companies that it's a shame.

if real was a monopoly and they used their power to cut out MusicMatch then they would be in the same case. MS integrated Media Player and IE and ruined two burgeoning businesses. No one will EVER be able to sell a browser unless MS starts selling IE and not integrating it into Explorer.


RE: Ridiculous
By TomZ on 3/31/2006 9:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
What companies went out of business due to XP SP2? ...and how did Microsoft accomplish this, by improving the security of the OS as they did in SP2?

News flash - all companies continually add features to their products. Microsoft didn't invent this idea.

If somebody wants to sell a browser or a media player, they have to figure out some innovations that add value. You can't create a successful business by taking something that is already free, cloning it, and trying to charge money for it. You have to add value.


RE: Ridiculous
By Janooo on 3/31/2006 5:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
What harm?

The black out from a few years ago on the NA east cost was caused by the virus spread through unpatched windows machines.

Ask people in NY how they felt when they were stuck in the subway trains. People were thinking it's 9/11 again.


RE: Ridiculous
By TomZ on 3/31/2006 6:05:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The black out from a few years ago on the NA east cost was caused by the virus spread through unpatched windows machines.

Huh? According to an article on WikiPedia, this had nothing to do with Windows.
quote:
On November 19, 2003, the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force released an interim report placing the cause of the blackout on FirstEnergy Corporation's failure to trim trees in part of its Ohio service area. The report said that a generating plant in Parma, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland, went off-line amid high electrical demand, and strained high-voltage power lines later went out of service when they came in contact with "overgrown trees". It also found that FirstEnergy did not take remedial action or warn other control centers until it was too late because of a bug in the Unix-based General Electric Energy's XA/21 system that prevented alarms from showing on their control system, and they had inadequate staff to detect and correct the software bug. The cascading effect that resulted ultimately forced the shutdown of more than 100 power plants.


More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_ North_America_bl...

If you have information to contradict that, please update the WikiPedia entry.


RE: Ridiculous
By mtnmanak on 3/31/2006 6:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that Microsoft is quickly becoming a vertical monopoly. This is extremely detrimental to the competitive system. Look at Carnegie Steel as an historical analogy of how bad it can get.

From wikipedia:
“One of the earliest, largest and most famous examples of vertical integration was the Carnegie Steel company. The company controlled not only the mills where the steel was manufactured, but the mines where the iron ore was extracted, the coal mines that supplied the coal, the ships that transported the iron ore and the railroads that transported the coal to the factory, the coke ovens where the coal was coked, etc.”

This where MS is headed. They may be a benevolent dictator now, but as they wipe out vertical competition, the consumer they have in a headlock eventually suffers. TomZ cited a number of recent MS initiatives in response to competition. This only bolsters the argument to take action against MS. By increasing competition, we increase MS’s desire to innovate.

Bill Gates is a 21st Century Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie got to the point that he controlled shipping via rail in the U.S. For example, if someone needed steel in Kansas, the only to get it by rail was to get it shipped by Union Pacific. Since Carnegie owned Union Pacific, the only steel they would deliver was Carnegie Steel. In effect, a guy in Kansas had no choice but to buy steel from Andrew Carnegie. Bill Gates has expanded the concept to a world-wide market. He owns the modern equivalent of the railroad. Or, a better analogy, he owns all the stations and railyards. The information superhighway may be open to everyone, but 94% of the world can only access it through on/off-ramps owned by Bill Gates.


RE: Ridiculous
By Janooo on 3/31/2006 11:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
The black out happened just in time when blaster was at it's best. The control system terminals are windows based. When instability happened in the grid they were not able to react.
Don't ask me how I know that.
The public would be scared if people knew what a high school kid can do. He went to jail for that. They don't tell the whole truth.



RE: Ridiculous
By TomZ on 4/2/2006 10:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I flushed the toilet at around the same time that the power went out. Does that mean the toilet flushing caused the blackout?


RE: Ridiculous
By Kilz on 3/31/2006 9:17:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let me start by saying that consumers decided to make Microsoft a monopoly by choosing to purchase Microsoft products. Nobody made them do it. Their monopoly status was not handed to them from a government, such as in the case in the U.S. with many utilities - cable TV, gas, electric, phone, etc. in many parts of the country.


The problem with that statement is that Microsoft had agreements with computer manufacturers that said they were the only operating system they could install if they wanted to license Windows. Thereby limiting choice

quote:
Why should they have to comply with rules/laws that would not apply to another company doing the same thing that has less market share?
.

Because they are a monopoly. Because they can lock out compitition so they can sell you more of their software or OS's

quote:
Finally, what "harm" has been done? The harm has been done to competitors that did not do as good a job as Microsoft. How did consumers get "harmed"? Look at the value that Microsoft software has contributed to both individuals and businesses all through the years. People knew about the value of the software, and made the purchase decisions. They could have chosen to purchase other software. Nobody held a gun to their head and told them they had to. Years later after having chosen to buy the software, and received the benefits of it, now some people decide they don't like the outcome (a big corporation), and try to find ways to take it apart? That is just crazy in my optinion.


Most competitors end up out of buisness (Netscape, Stacker, OS/2). Because Microsoft undecuts their market, only to raise prices later. Consumers are harmed by not having a choice and higher costs. The value is buggy software with poor security.

quote:
These decisions by the EU are just part of a socialist agenda designed to more equally distribute wealth amongst its citizens. All the claims of "harm" and "monopoly" are just rationalizations for these governments to do what they think is right. Microsoft of course has to play along, and will do what it can to minimize its exposure. I think this sitation needs to considered in this overall context.


I am glad you are not in charge. Do you work for Microsoft or one of its partners?


RE: Ridiculous
By TomZ on 3/31/2006 9:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem with that statement is that Microsoft had agreements with computer manufacturers that said they were the only operating system they could install if they wanted to license Windows. Thereby limiting choice

Those agreements did happen, but computer manufacturers didn't have a gun to their head when they signed them. Don't you think the reason they agreed to them was because they were offered pricing incentives? And how is this different than in any many other industries? For example, try going to the local GM dealership and ask them if you can get a GM vehicle with a factory-installed Panasonic radio? No, you can't - because GM has an exclusive agreement with one vendor. Same for all the other components in the vehicle. The car is take-it-or-leave-it.

Just like with the car industry, if you don't like the package, buy somewhere else. Dell only sells Intel processors, but you like AMD? Then buy from Gateway instead, etc.

quote:
Because they are a monopoly. Because they can lock out compitition so they can sell you more of their software or OS's

Customers always have a choice - how could they not? Just give me an example of a single application that Microsoft sells, where no viable alternative competitor exists. Then explain how they are locked out? As long as my computer has a CD-ROM drive, then I can install software - anybody's software - from any vendor - whenever I choose.
quote:
Most competitors end up out of buisness (Netscape, Stacker, OS/2). Because Microsoft undecuts their market, only to raise prices later.

Sorry, but most of these companies when out of business due to poor execution or other problems. Please give evidence of price dumping? I have yet to see that with any Microsoft product. IE is free, but so was Netscape (why would you base a company on a free product, anyway?). Was Windows ever priced lower than OS/2? Were Microsoft developer tools ever priced lower than Borland's? No!


RE: Ridiculous
By dead1ne on 3/31/2006 2:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
The reasoning behind forcing MS to document or disclose all of their code is that MS is a monopoly. RealMedia doesn't even have 50% of the market. Also applications aren't intended to be written for RM. RM is just a AV suite. Windows on the other hand is meant as the basis for which programs are to run on. By not fully documenting all of the features of Windows MS is creating a barrier to entry in the market. If MS wasn't a monopoly this wouldn't be seen as a problem. For example IE is tied directly into Windows so that any explorer window can convert it self transparently to an IE window. While I am not saying that this is a widely sought after feature it is one that would be extremely dificult for a third-party to duplicate.


RE: Ridiculous
By Sunbird on 3/31/2006 4:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
There is reason why RealNetworks products isn't such a major player as they could be, and it has nothing to do with Microsoft (except that even Media Player is better), its because their programs SUCK, especially interface wise.

Programs like WinAmp are popular cause they don't suck. There are many free applications that work perfectly well on Windows and you dont hear them moaning, cause they have decent programmers and other similar factors.


RE: Ridiculous
By INeedCache on 3/31/2006 6:01:54 PM , Rating: 2
Are the consumers complaining about Microsoft being a monopoly? Does this persecution of MS by the EU help the consumers? You MS naysayers crack me up. It's OK to crack on them, but when you buy other products where you are given extras, you think it's great. Maybe cars should be sold without radios, GPS units, integrated child seats, and tires since it is unfair to other companies who make these things. The EU is not acting in the best interests of the consumers in this case since MS is not price gouging or anything of the sort. The price of Windows is on par with many Linux distros. This ruling is only harming the consumers.


RE: Ridiculous
By RHiNoX on 3/31/2006 7:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
I think Bill should just tell the EU where to go and stop selling Windows in the EU. It would be very interesting to see how long these whining wimps can remain competitive with the rest of the world as they fumble around trying to install Ubuntu.

Either the daily fines would be dropped and the EU commies would come back to the negotiating table or the recession that would follow in Europe would would bring them begging to buy Windows again and drop all charges.


Monopoly
By smitty3268 on 3/31/2006 2:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
Every time a MS vs the EU article comes up, there are a bunch of posters whining about how MS is treated so unfairly, blah blah blah... Let me boil the facts down for you.

1. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist - at least in the EU.

2. Monopolists have to follow different rules than other companies.

3. This is in order to restore the free market, which has been harmed by the monopolist.

Now, you can think that MS is NOT a monopolist, or you can say that there is nothing wrong with a monopoly and that they should be encouraged rather than discouraged. But anyone who is complaining about the raw deal MS always gets should say exactly why they think MS should be protected instead of relying on slogans.




RE: Monopoly
By stmok on 3/31/2006 3:16:49 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed!

Let me append some more info...


There are three main anti-trust cases against Microsoft that pretty much spans the world. All three say Microsoft is a monopolist. All have convicted MS of being GUILTY.

(a) USA.

That apparently still isn't over. While the US Govt are bumbling around, MS is making a killing. Putting the right people in key positions to make it a favourable outcome for them. You'd have to be pretty arrogant not to be suspicious about the activities of Microsoft in its home country.

(b) European Union.

This is outside of USA, so they have to kiss ass. The EU has made MS comply to some of its complaints. This includes the existance of an "N" version of Windows without Media Player.

(c) South Korea.

They just ruled that Microsoft should be forced to strip both Windows Media Player and a few other apps off Windows. MS is appealing.


If you think this is all about jealousy and some other nonsensical BS, have a think why MS is being charged with all these anti-trust cases?

How come IBM, Sun, Symantec, etc, etc don't get this issue?

Anyone with half a brain knows MS have been treating everyone like crap and abusing their power to maintain total dominance. I guess most of you Microsoft defenders won't know until you do business with them.

The only way to stop this Microsoft behaviour is with the law.

I hope EU rapes them with every penny they got. Because they clearly deserve what's coming to them.


RE: Monopoly
By Nekrik on 3/31/2006 3:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the 'N' version was forced on them by the EU and hasn't sold at all. The governemnet imposes its will thinking it know everyone wants XP without the media player, and nobody buys it. Why? They want the damned media player. After spending millions on this stupid exercise of course they are going to appeal when another country tries the same thing.

Personally, while it will never happen, I think MS should simply remove their products from the markets that bitch. Let's watch the EU prosper when they can't interact with the rest of the world.


RE: Monopoly
By smitty3268 on 3/31/2006 4:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
And what makes you think the rest of the world wouldn't follow the EU? There's a reason MS is putting up with all of the things being done to them over there - MS needs the EU more than the EU needs MS.


RE: Monopoly
By MadAd on 3/31/2006 5:00:03 PM , Rating: 2
Hahaha, excellent post...of course it hasnt sold, its not been marketed, theres no stands or adverts saying buy xpn, its availability is unknown and sheer knowlege of xpns existance tends to mean your the geeky type anyway, one that probably doesnt need to replace their o/s. Personally I have never seen it available (but I will make a concious effort to check the shelves more closely in pcworld next time I pop in).

The fact of the matter was that the 'remove wmp' judgement was a cludge and made no difference to the man in the street that could care less about wmp. His solution is to ignore wmp if you want a different media player, just load up the one you really want. Hardly worth going out to seek a new o/s over. However when vista hits euro shelves they had better have it sorted out or itll be the high jump for them.

Personally, while it will never happen, i think it would be a great idea for M$ to remove their products from all EU member nations- it would be a struggle at first but since we are not short of world class coders you can bet your life that there would be a massive effort culminating pdq into a challenging alternative to XP, available for the rest of the world too- no no, bad idea, best pay the fine as long as we can keep shoving it up them europeans too.


RE: Monopoly
By Wwhat on 4/1/2006 9:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
The idea of not having WMP in it is also that others cannot go around assuming all windows version have the WMP crap coming with WMP pre-installed, but unfortunately they still do, take nvidia for instance, to use their video/h.264 acceleration you MUST have not only all the latest WMP stuff installed but also all the DRM 'updates'. (not sure if ATI does the same btw)
I wish the N move would have worked and people knew about it and OEM's had the sense to see it's a good thing to support.


RE: Monopoly
By maxusa on 3/31/2006 5:14:27 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, I have at least half a brain to be able to earn bachelors, masters, and numerous professional certifications. I do business (through my company) with MS as an ISV and OEM partner. I do not think MS is treating everyone like crap. In fact, I've been a business partner with IBM (2nd to MS in software sales, and 1st in patents) and other big and medium tech companies to know, first hand, that MS has the best partner program with most benefits and value.

I can argue that the antitrust cases were brought for political reasons. S.Korea is just a puppet, so they are happy to oblige often overdoing it. MS shall just forbid the use of its products in S.Korea to teach a lesson. The US and EU cases are politically driven by the lobby, whining MS haters, and "freedom" loving hippies. With populations as big as in these 2 locations, even if several percent of constituents whine, this is a big enough sample to invoke the process.

I consulted for governments in different countries to know who most of the government people are: insecure and incompetent folks in the executive branch, and opportunistic (corrupt) folks in legislative. No wonder this combination of factors precipitated the situation.

I am not defending either side, just offering my perspective of the circus.


RE: Monopoly
By Samus on 3/31/2006 4:04:07 PM , Rating: 1
yea, gm's a monopoly and must share their secret to failure with the rest of the auto industry, only because they're (somehow) the largest manufacturer.

or maybe dunkin donuts has a monopoly on donuts, or subway has a monopoly on subs, or dell has a monopoly on the pc market.

should they all share their secrets to success. no.


AT&T
By Slaimus on 3/31/2006 4:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
Remember the whole AT&T ordeal? In the end, consumer satisfaction did not get any better with many baby bells than one big ma bell. What it did was to give the competition time to catch up.

Right now, the government is not stepping in as the baby bells merge because there is active competition from cable/VoIP that if the ma bell reemerges, they still cannot monopolize the market.

In the case of Microsoft, I think there is already adequate technology out there that preventing them from monopolizing the market. Having them release the kernel source code would probably spawn some small projects, but you cannot replicate the whole Windows package anyways.


RE: AT&T
By TomZ on 3/31/2006 4:45:43 PM , Rating: 3
What's interesting about AT&T is that it was a government sanctioned monopoly.

Also, oddly, my father-in-law told me the other day (for no real reason) that in his opinion, the phone system today is much worse than when AT&T had its monopoly.


RE: Monopoly
By Salvation122 on 3/31/2006 7:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
The notion that the EU is a great champion of the free market is utterly hilarious. Also, absurd.


a day
By spwrozek on 3/31/2006 1:06:38 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously 2.4 mil a day! I know Microsoft is big but that is ridiculous! Why should they have to give other people their code anyways?




RE: a day
By oTAL on 3/31/2006 1:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
You are missinformed as to the merits of this case and should read about it before posting comments. The case has merit and intends to limit microsoft's ability to deliberatly hinder competition by not allowing them to interace properly with Microsoft software. If you don't release detailed information on a protocol the competition has to reverse engineer everything. That is very hard and time consuming, giving MS an unfair advantage in producing products in the same segment. Imagine building an FTP client without knowing the protocol (and that one is an EXTREMELY simple protocol).


RE: a day
By THEREALJMAN73 on 3/31/06, Rating: 0
RE: a day
By rcsteiner on 3/31/2006 2:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
I find it interesting that some people can witness over a decade of Microsoft clearly violating the law, and can see over a half-dozen cases where individual COUNTRIES (including both the US and the EU) have stated that Microsoft has acted in violation of the law, and then go ahead and assume that the punishments being given out by those governments are the end result of corporate jealousy.

The fact that a company is successful doesn't make it immune from punishment when it crosses the line into illegal activity, except perhaps in the US...


RE: a day
By Exodus220 on 3/31/2006 2:18:49 PM , Rating: 2
What illegal activity? Give me some examples.


RE: a day
By stmok on 3/31/2006 2:40:01 PM , Rating: 1
THEREALJMAN73 says...

quote:

I say good for Microsoft making a product that so many people use and boo to the cry baby companies who cannot make a good enough product to compete on their own.


And I say: Your sir, are a baffoon that has been blinded by nonsense. You're the same type of people that's easily gulliable to marketing from any company. (Be sure to lubricate yourself next time for a thorough butt romp from marketing folks of other companies).


People use their products because:

(1) They don't know how to use PCs.

Have a think why they're the same people who are easily duped into Phishing scams. Its also the same people who have little knowledge of even the most basic network security concepts.

And its the VERY SAME type of people who moved to Mac. (They've spent the money, but that doesn't gain them any wisdom...They're still in trouble when a serious security issue pops up).


(2) They are pre-packaged into a typical system (desktop or notebook).

Its very rare to find a system that doesn't have a copy of Windows there. (There are a few systems that allow the user not to have any OS included, saving you some money...Enough to pick up 1GB of RAM in 2x 512MB sticks!)


(3) Mankind is a lazy SOB when it comes to complex things and have a habit of disliking change.

Its easier to teach someone another OS, who hasn't touched Windows before. (With Windows, you pick up some nasty habits. Rebooting/Resetting and formating a system to fix issues or doing it on a regular basis, IS NOT normal!)...Checking the logs and finding out what's the problem IS normal.


(4) Windows users are willing to stick by it, no matter the issues.

Even if its technologically inferior to other OSs, and has more security issues up the wazoo. Its easy to use, and they don't want to learn anything else. They're willing to spend money and time on third-party applications when they should be asking Microsoft to seriously rebuild Windows from the ground up.


Nowhere in Microsoft's history, have they actually made a seriously high quality product that you can bet your life on. They're just a company with the biggest bark.

They ain't no General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, IBM, or Lockheed Martin, that's for sure.


And BTW, it has nothing to do with jealousy.

If you want to write an application or develop a solution that works with MS solutions, I like to know how you're gonna achieve that without proper documented information on protocols and such.

Clearly, you ain't no programmer, nor are you aware of what's really going on with the IT industry. Simply put, you're a no-clue baffoon who has yet to taste the real world.


I suppose you believe Microsoft's monopoly is helping technological innovation?

And money is not an issue in Africa?
(despite the folks over there are barely earning enough to feed themselves, let alone afford Windows).

And Netscape knocked itself out of the browser war, and that's how Internet Explorer won?

Yes, that is official Microsoft logic.


RE: a day
By TomZ on 3/31/2006 3:06:33 PM , Rating: 2
Your basic premise is that folks are too dumb to not choose Microsoft products. Sorry, but I think you have an overly negative view of people. In my experience, most people are intelligent and informed enough to make decisions for themselves. People need to make decisions for themselves, and if there are consequences, they need to assume responsibility for their decisions. If they don't like the big corporation they made, then they should buy someone else's products.

Microsoft OSs are pre-loaded on most PCs because people want to buy them that way. Most people buy Windows because they like it better than the alternatives. It is all about choice.


RE: a day
By stmok on 3/31/2006 3:35:56 PM , Rating: 1
TomZ says.

quote:
Your basic premise is that folks are too dumb to not choose Microsoft products. Sorry, but I think you have an overly negative view of people. In my experience, most people are intelligent and informed enough to make decisions for themselves. People need to make decisions for themselves, and if there are consequences, they need to assume responsibility for their decisions. If they don't like the big corporation they made, then they should buy someone else's products.

Microsoft OSs are pre-loaded on most PCs because people want to buy them that way. Most people buy Windows because they like it better than the alternatives. It is all about choice.


You're a fool, if you honestly believe that is an example of choice.

You argument is flawed beyond all recognition. It flows perfectly with Microsoft logic.

I'm saying people are too dumb and lazy to get off their fat asses and actually look for alternatives. They know nothing better. If you don't know of alternatives, how are you suppose to make ANY choices to begin with?

Ask anyone in the street if they heard of Linux, BSD, Solaris, OS/2, BeOS, and so on. They'll look at you funny.

Ask them about Microsoft or Windows, and their faces click and acknowledge they use it.


Microsoft isn't about choice. Its about domination and elimination of competition by any means. Anyone knows Microsoft cannot compete with a company that brings in a serious quality product. All they can do is throw curve balls to drive potential customers away, so they can buy the company out.



Telling people about other OSs, and letting them decide which OS best fits their requirements is CHOICE.

Assuming people want Microsoft solutions and NOT telling people about alternatives is NOT a CHOICE.


I guess that's the difference between you can me.

You shove nonsense into someone else's face and call it choice.

I actually tell someone of all their options and let them decide what they need.


My question is: how do people know an MS solution is better if they haven't tried the alternative for at least a year?

See how flawed your comment is?


RE: a day
By Phynaz on 3/31/2006 3:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
What's with all the name calling?


RE: a day
By TomZ on 3/31/2006 4:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm saying people are too dumb and lazy to get off their fat asses and actually look for alternatives. They know nothing better. If you don't know of alternatives, how are you suppose to make ANY choices to begin with?

OK, so your argument is because people are too dumb and lazy to find an alternative, that Microsoft should be punished for that, forced to pay fines and give away their IP? For you that is logic? Maybe the government should tell each person which OS they should buy because they are too dumb to make the "right" choice? Is that your logic?

The fact the most people don't choose alternatives isn't the same as saying no alternatives can or do exist. People do have choices, they are available, they are viable, and people so sometimes choose them. So it is about choice.


Just Leave
By INeedCache on 4/1/06, Rating: 0
RE: Just Leave
By Merry on 4/1/2006 12:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
Ah an open source utopia!


RE: Just Leave
By david99 on 4/2/2006 5:13:01 AM , Rating: 2
Merry:
"Ah an open source utopia!"

no, not in the slightest, just because fsardis said
"yes, please leave and take the rubbish with you.

leave us all here cry with Novell SuSe Linux and the XGL GUI." and others have given the same sentiment doesnt imply
that its eather open source or no source solution.

the fact is while thomasxstewart didnt exactly say it very clearly so some people thought it might be cool to belittle him, all this MS should leave the EU has already been said over on one of the slash-dot threads.

basicly it comes down to this:

MS while very ritch and has more council than many countrys
combined, still need to abide by the given laws of any land they wish to do business in/through.

leaving the combined market known as the EU is not an option for them as that would mean loosing more than 50% of their total gross/net profit, but lets just suppose for a moment that they were to do as you (INeedCache) advocate
"Microsoft should just pull all products and services from Europe, then sit back and watch the hordes march up the hill with pitchforks and torches after the EU"

do you and the others really beleave that these unamed 'hordes' , and by that i assume you mean the current EU MS OS users ?, would march up that hill, and by that again i assume you mean protest to the relevent EU goventent
and related Orgs ?.

im sorry but the facts of life is that NO incarnation past/present or future of microsoft with all its money/council could ever do such a thing and hope that ANY developed county would sit back and
take on action.

the simple fact is MS is protected, as are all companys world wide by the law of the land, whatever land that might be, only because the law says it is, its quit posible to revoke (as thomasxstewart try to say) any Patent & Copyright privlidges that said law covers once a company has been found guilty, such as MS already has, as part of
the ongoing legal process, and especily as MS have in fact tryed to avoid the rulings to date.

if for instance the EU or in fact any of the countrys now or in the future were forced to revoke the privliges etc
then that would mean that the US end users and companys would infact have to take on the finantial burden of keeping MS in profit by perhaps paying far more per OS copy, while the EU *could* pass law to allow the EU membership to continue to use the MS OS while a transition
was made to free and NON free OS's and apps, remember that the EU and the UK have produced the bulk of applications
and games for the MS OS for many years, thats why MS and to some extent the 3rd party US sofware companys have try to buy into many inovative EU HW/SW companys, so while it might take a while to regain stability the laws would be far more open to inovation and colaberation to provent any such upheaval in sw ever again.

that doesnt even account for the far east countrys and others that may decide to join in colaberation to help open up new markets and get some nice profits for their countrys, and hence making even more strain on the poor US people and companys that would have to pay higher costs
for a by then failing MS and lets not forget the MS board of directors and the share holders, would they stand idly by while bill and executives made things even werse
for the US sw companys etc?.

remember the EU and the rest of the world have been around
a lot longer than the US microsoft, and if they want to push it then the world will only take so much as long as theres profit in it, in your proposition there would be much profit for very long.......


RE: Just Leave
By david99 on 4/2/2006 5:26:29 AM , Rating: 2
sorry that sound be "there would *NOT* be much profit for very long.......



RE: Just Leave
By fsardis on 4/1/06, Rating: 0
RE: Just Leave
By Wwhat on 4/1/2006 9:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
If microsoft could walk away from billions of (fair or unfair) profit this situation would not exist in the first place eh.

Besides, if they did the users would simply warez windows and the official firms would go linux/unix/apple and that would mature enough to then take over the US market.


RE: Just Leave
By INeedCache on 4/2/2006 11:29:46 AM , Rating: 2
If Microsoft's products are all rubbish, I just hope you're not using any of them. I'm sure the transition to Linux/Unix would be seamless, with no problems whatsoever. Yeah, right. No one has to buy, or use, Microsoft products if they don't want to, but apparently they do. Don't give me that garbage about they are a monopoly and I don't have any other choices, because that's worn out and bogus. Microsoft isn't stopping you from running Linux/Unix, or anything else. What, not enough drivers or support for Linux/Unix? Blame Microsoft for that, too. Why don't some of you whiners write some. Better yet, write your own OS code.


RE: Just Leave
By fsardis on 4/2/2006 4:46:46 PM , Rating: 1
so smart guy, what happens when i want to use applications written by other companies that only run on windows but i dont want windows?
why do i have to deal with windows? just because the boys in redmond are blackmailing and steering the market to their advantage?
what if i want to play farcry? just because MS grabbed ubisoft by the balls for directX support I have to use windows for their application?
but look what happens when a company is big and has balls. take epic games. UT has always been ready for linux out of the box. it always had openGL support. they gave MS a big finger. why cant they all do that? you think they dont want to appeal to linux market? its because the guys at redmont do what they always do best (and thats not programming)


RE: Just Leave
By Regs on 4/2/2006 7:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
If that's tax deductable Gates might actually make a profit.


RE: Just Leave
By TomZ on 4/2/2006 10:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
Suggest you check Microsoft's annual reports and see if you can find a quarter where they didn't make a sizable profit.


the EU are retards
By yzhu92 on 3/31/2006 6:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
The EU are a bunch of pointless people who do crap and just wanna sue companies which they think are a monopoly.

the EU suck




RE: the EU are retards
By Merry on 3/31/2006 7:12:34 PM , Rating: 1
hello Mr Gates. Bitter are we?


I hope to god that is sarcasm, otherwise, your grasp on european politics is pretty poor.


RE: the EU are retards
By TomZ on 3/31/2006 9:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
In a nutshell, here is why the EU regulators are wrong .

1. European customers are not crying out for any relief, because like American customers, they don't feel taken advantage of

2. Regulators have not made any reasonable case as to how these remedies will have any improvement on the hypothetical problem to be solved

Finally, let me ask this question: If Microsoft was a European-based company and otherwise the circumstances were exactly the same, do you think EU regulators would be going after them? No way! This is more about politics than about right and wrong.


RE: the EU are retards
By smitty3268 on 3/31/2006 11:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
Finally, let me ask this question: If Microsoft was a European-based company and otherwise the circumstances were exactly the same, do you think EU regulators would be going after them? No way! This is more about politics than about right and wrong.

True, but if MS was a European based company then they would have been destroyed in American courts instead of the other way around. Don't try and pretend that Europe is the only place politics are going on.


RE: the EU are retards
By TomZ on 4/1/2006 9:43:23 AM , Rating: 2
Please give an example where the US courts have gone after Eurpean monopolies? Airbus?


RE: the EU are retards
By Merry on 4/1/2006 9:53:58 AM , Rating: 2
Airbus isnt a monopoly


RE: the EU are retards
By fsardis on 4/1/2006 5:03:05 PM , Rating: 1
right, so the EU are retards? and you are the smart one right?

lets see how the pc world is when it comes to OS.

i buy a pc from a manufacturer and i dont even have an option of the OS i want. i cannot even ask for the pc without any software installed. why is that? cause uncle billy told dell or any other dell for that matter that if they have to sell windows only and with every pc if they want any windows licences. very fair isnt it? So EU are morons for this. of course they are, you are not supposed to have any objections to cold blackmail.

so what happpens now is that every average guy buy as pc that has windows in it cause he has no choice. of course as an average guy he doesnt know much about computers so he uses IE and WMP and of course MS (S for Sh*t) Office. so MS has the poor guy grabbed by his balls and drags him down the drain of low quality products. now, we got other companies that have better ideas and better products but in order to make them work they need some documentation from MS. the documentation doesnt exist so those guys are stuck. and deeper the poor average guy is dragged by the balls into the sewage because MS owns all. but of course EU are idiots cause they want to help the poor average guy whose balls have now turned black from the tight grip.

and how did we all get into this? oh yea i remember, bill gates and steve jobs steal the idea of GUI from the Xerox labs. but uncle billy had what it takes. he had the ruthless, unethical mind of a master thug and he backstabs his partner in crime and creates windows. and of course once he realised that windows sells, it all became a marketing game, leaving security and quality behind. and what do we get? we get win XP. the best OS from MS as some claim. and now, we get vista (although a bit delayed but oh well). and what they do with vista? they try to fix security and add more multimedia features. and you think thats innovation? have a look at SuSe linux and the new XGL guy and come tell me what innovation is all about. and its free. so what happens now? with Vista the circle begins again. MS will not provide documentation, the consumers will be stuck with a low quality OS that is way behind in features compared to Linux and we will all be happy, because most applications from MS partners only run in windows. and nobody can do anything about the situation because MS will not do the documentation. But EU are idiots cause they want to help the poor consumers from some guys in redmond that want to get richer by unethical/illegal business tactics and not by quality products.

if MS was based in europe billy's arse would have been cut a long time ago for all the things he has done. unfortunately though, MS is based in US and the rich and powerful control the government there unfortunately.

this is my rant and my contribution. and yes i think EU are idiots too, cause the fine should have been $10m a day.


RE: the EU are retards
By Wwhat on 4/1/2006 9:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
Well spoken


EU vs. USA
By Dhaval00 on 3/31/2006 2:15:54 PM , Rating: 1
M$ is trying to clean up its mess. I don't think that M$ is prefect, but in this particular case, it's the EU that's the culprit. All in all, I think the EU is a dumb body - it becomes worse every time a new country joins the Union. It is not M$ alone - look @ the bid by Laxmi Mittal for taking over France based Arcelor. His firm is quite competent, but the EU is rejecting the bid (it seems) merely on the basis of Mittal's skin color. They don't want to move forward, it seems... no wonder France is burning.

Try placing yourself in M$'s shoes - would be willing to pay $2.4M a day just for "not sharing your code?" Of course, companies like IBM and Oracle will back the proceedings because they want to overtake M$. EU is transforming Europe into 16th century England. Plus the whole issue is quite political and it looks as if M$ is getting crushed between a financial stand-off between the USA and the EU.




RE: EU vs. USA
By sadffffff on 3/31/2006 2:50:37 PM , Rating: 2
its MS, not M$


RE: EU vs. USA
By Kilz on 3/31/2006 9:21:22 PM , Rating: 3
Its sad that you think its the EU vs USA. In fact is should be EU + USA vs Microsoft. But in the USA Microsoft can buy its way out of anything.


RE: EU vs. USA
By Shadowself on 3/31/2006 11:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
As said by others and myself above, this is NOT ABOUT SHARING CODE . It is about properly documenting the interfaces to the operating system. MS refuses to do so. MS claims it will take too long and be too expensive to do so (even though MS has had about two years since the initial ruling to do it).

MS even went so far as to actually offer the EU commission full access to the source code (undocumented, of course). The EU responded that they do NOT want the source code. They just want the interfaces to the system properly documented!

And as others here say, this has nothing to do with any EU v USA issues!


Microsoft is a Monopoly
By mtnmanak on 3/31/2006 6:00:35 PM , Rating: 3
Most folks posting about this topic seem to be forgetting (or are ignorant) about WHY Microsoft has been found guilty of monopolistic practices. It is not because they have a monopoly over all the other companies with their operating system (they do, but that is not what caused the various countries to go after them). It is because they used their monopoly to gain an unfair advantage over other companies. An earlier poster asked for examples:

In the U.S., Microsoft was found guilty of using their monopoly to effectively run other browser developers (notably Netscape) out of business. They did this not only by bundling their browser into the operating system (giving them an unfair advantage over other companies), but also by actively using their monopoly to ensure that OEM vendors could not sell computers with other browsers installed. In addition, they originally made it impossible to uninstall IE without breaking the OS.

In the U.S. and EU, Microsoft was found guilty of using undocumented code to give them an unfair advantage in other applications. This extended beyond bundled applications into Microsoft’s entire product line. Some versions of MS Office, for instance, were found to use the undocumented code, which clearly is an unfair practice – you cannot use an existing monopoly to create yet another one (in this case, using undocumented OS features to give their office suite more/better functionality/stability than other developers). Also, they were found to have used their monopoly to provide their application developers advanced access to unreleased operating systems before they allowed their competitors access to the SDK. While these may be “good” business practices, they are illegal.

Microsoft has also been guilty of using their vast resources to artificially lower prices in a market to drive all competitors out of business. To compound the problem, they frequently use this technique to then buy out the failed companies and assimilate their information technology. Yes, this is an illegal practice if it further creates a Vertical monopoly.

They seem to be getting more careful about blatant violations. Security, for example, has them between a rock and hard place. If, on one hand, they bundle robust virus and firewall capabilities into the OS, they will most likely get sued by Symantec and McAfee. If they don’t, they will get sued by consumers complaining that Microsoft is selling an inherently faulty product. MS seems to have chosen a middle ground by bundling a weak firewall and no virus protection in WinXP (this is also the model they are currently planning for Vista), but, instead, offering OneCare as an unbundled product. OneCare presents its own set of issues. Make it too good and/or cheap and the other security companies will sue. Make it too weak and/or expensive and the consumers will sue. Nobody said it was easy to be king.

Most people have completely forgotten that modern monopoly laws in place in the Western World were virtually written in response to the U.S. experiences during the Industrial Revolution. We literally wrote the book on unfair business practices. A hundred-fifty years ago, we figured out that allowing monopolies to dictate our lives was a bad thing. Microsoft is not a victim of 21st Century socialism, they are a criminal based on 19th Century capitalism.

Another misinterpretation above is the difference between “monopoly of choice” and a “monopoly put in place by the government”. While I understand what the poster is trying to say, they missed the point entirely. First, the government does not put monopolies in place. The government does allow Natural monopolies to stay alive when they determine that it is in the public’s interest to be served by a Natural monopoly, but all Natural monopolies start out as either a Horizontal or a Vertical monopoly, or both. These are what the above poster was calling “monopolies of choice”. AT&T, for example, started out as a competitive company in the early 1900’s and, from about 1900-1930, bought out all of the other communications competitors. The Telecommunications Act of 1934 and future court decisions basically solidified AT&T as a natural monopoly. As a side note, anyone who thinks we were better off under AT&T as a monopoly is clearly deluded and does not remember a time when you could buy a phone from anyone you wanted – as long as it was AT&T and as long as it was black or white.

Although Microsoft has an unquestioned Horizontal monopoly (they own ~94% of the worldwide OS market), it is their Vertical monopolistic practices that get them into trouble. This is the practice of using a horizontal monopoly (such as owning the OS market) to drive competitors out of other markets (such as application markets). It doesn’t matter which capitalist society you try to do that in, you will draw the attention of the government. A long time ago, as a society, we determined this to be a very bad thing for our economy. It is interesting that the only countries you can get away with that sort of practice are countries that are diametrically opposed to the American way of life.

To sum up, Microsoft has clearly violated some of the economic principles that we hold most dear in America. We have always embraced the right of the individual to try and compete in any market and we frown on any company who tries to ensure nobody else can compete with them. Making money is a very good thing, making money illegally is not.




RE: Microsoft is a Monopoly
By TomZ on 3/31/2006 9:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
You wrote a lot, and unfortunately, I have only a little time and can't reply to all your posts.

Netscape and the browser "wars" was a much ado about nothing... Several companies fighting about market share with products that were free. What kind of business sense is that? Netscape shot itself in the foot due to poor execution. Example here: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/prin terFriendly/arti...

Also, if you look at how this has turned out, it's kind of funny to make the vertical monopoly argument. What is one of the big trends of 2005? The rise of Firefox. But IE is still integrated into the OS! But still, Firefox is gaining market share because lots of folks think it is a better browser. So please explain to me how vertical monopoly applied here.

Regarding using undocumented API's, I again think this is a load of crap. It probably was the case that some internal Microsoft developers got earlier access to up-and-coming platform technologies, but so what. Over the years, Microsoft has been very, very supportive of other companies developing software for their operating systems. If you look back in time, this wasn't always the case with other companies, like IBM with their mainframes and TI with their TI-99/4a. Remember in the case of the latter, TI threatened to sue third parties that tried to write programs for the TI? Microsoft is a long way from being guilty or wrong in this area.

While I agree that Microsoft is technically a monopoly and needs to be watched, the evidence is very clear that they have contributed a lot more to our society and economy, and that the "harm" done was primarily done to other companies that largely due to their own mistakes gave Microsoft some additional opportunities. Consumers and businesses that use Microsoft products have benefitted tremendously due to Microsoft's products, and will continue to going forward.


RE: Microsoft is a Monopoly
By mtnmanak on 4/1/2006 12:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
TomZ-

First, look at my post above in the “Ridiculous” thread for more on my argument of MS being too vertically integrated.

Second, you have to look at the big picture. If you believe that MS does not use their monopoly to drive competitors out of the application business, then you are being myopic. You cannot take one or two cases and use them to invalidate an issue that is this big. Microsoft is a world-wide company with their hands in thousands of applications. This is the very definition of being vertically integrated.

I have no doubt, though, that Microsoft’s monopoly will not last. History shows that, eventually, monopolies do implode on themselves. MS is definitely showing signs of that happening. While smaller, more agile companies are innovating quickly and putting out products that are better than ever, MS hasn’t given us a new OS in five years (that’s about 20 years in tech time!) and all the first indications of Vista seem to point towards it being more of the same. Internal (and unauthorized) blogs coming out of MS workers point to an organization that has grown so large and unwieldy that the bureaucracy is beating out the good ideas. 20 years ago, the office slogan was “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM”. Now, you would be hard pressed to find an IBM on most corporate American desks. IBM is still a strong, robust and powerful company, but they are hardly a monopoly anymore. The same will happen to MS, it is just a matter of time.


Communism
By blwest on 3/31/2006 2:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
In soviet russia, monopolies own you.




RE: Communism
By Merry on 3/31/2006 3:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
would you mean owned?


Take Away Microsofts "Priviledge".
By thomasxstewart on 3/31/06, Rating: 0
By Nekrik on 3/31/2006 2:04:55 PM , Rating: 1
LMAO - you're too funny.

MS has several times tried to appease them and they are still unhappy. In some cases it seems like they are whining because they can't understand the documentation that is presented. That is just sad because it looks like they are trying to sue due to their own incompetence in their ability to read technical documentation. Maybe MS should offer to train them rather than rewrite the documents.

This reeks a lot like the whole XP version M garbage.


By Phynaz on 3/31/2006 2:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
In what country do you get to be an M.D. without getting an education?


By cornfedone on 3/31/2006 4:37:32 PM , Rating: 1
Then they will comply.




"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki