Microsoft and the European Commission will clash in court over innovation and intellectual-property rights when the software giant appeals a 2004 antitrust decision, according to court papers seen by Reuters. Microsoft wants to turn around the Commission’s decision that it abused the dominance of its Windows system to muscle out rivals who did not have enough detail of the operating system to create efficient software that could run with it.
“Nothing in the file shows that the communication protocols in relation to which Microsoft will have to disclose specifications contain innovations,”…
“(The) fact that trade secrets can be assigned or transferred does not mean that they constitute intellectual property,” the document said.
Right on EC.
Personally, the term “Microsoft Innovation” inspires the same nausea as “Weapons of Mass Destruction”….
(barf)
what?! you mean all those cool features in Vista that are similiar in both looks and functionality to that of OSX do not qualify as innovative?! Say it isn’t so!
Edited 2006-04-11 19:10
I do believe that MS considers “innovation” only in terms of their previously released software.
Not in comparison to what others have done around them.
Guess the European Commission employes have to do something to earn their paychecks.
I wonder how much this self-righteous crusade against MS is costing euro taxpayers per day.
Not nearly as much as Microsoft’s continued 80-90% profit margins on Windows and Office is costing European citizens and businesses, I’ll bet.
Poor Poor Microsoft; pffft. I would say the same thing about any multinational corp. They’re all crooks.
“Guess the European Commission employes have to do something to earn their paychecks.
“
Indeed, they have to do something to earn their paychecks – they have to uphold the law fairly and justly for all participants. Even when under lobbied-for political pressures from large companies.
“I wonder how much this self-righteous crusade against MS is costing euro taxpayers per day.“
Self-righteous? Crusade? – A reason-free religious killing spree to spread the word of a belief?
I wouldn’t call it ‘self-righteous‘, I would say it is more along the lines of justly upholding the democratically agreed law so that companies may compete fairly and not be forced out of the market due merely to monopolistic practices. Thus increasing competition which brings better innovative ideas end greater working efficiencies, and a better distribution of wealth, and a happier population.
Afterall, economically, dramatic innovation and increases in efficiency throughout history have only really occured in a competitive free-market capitalist economy. The extremes – an economy populated with monopolies (i.e. a non-competitive capitalist economy), or a communist economic system – has been shown to hinder innovation and reduce efficiencies (i.e. lower output per person or per work effort).
Edited 2006-04-12 02:26
Self-righteous crusade?
Look, if the government does something against a monopoly then the complaint is that government is getting too involved in business. If they do nothing then the government is not helping the little guy.
So in your case, either you really like MS and want them to trample all small development companies and be the only software force in Europe, or you just don’t understand what is going on there. I live in the U.S. and wish our government would take action against a company that abuses it monopoly position instead a light slap on the wrist which allows them to basically keep doing what they always have been doing to kill competition.
I really wouldn’t mind my taxes going to something like that.
@rjmatm
That’s nice and all.
But Microsoft doesn’t have a monopoly here nor in the EU. The US realised that Microsoft doesn’t have a monopoly. When will the EU come to term with such an obvious reality?
Until they do, the circus is still on…
Microsoft is guilty of monopolistic practices. It was proven in the US, and it’s blatantly obvious elsewhere as well.
They used their desktop place to get IE’s foot in the door, then their coughers to keep it there until they drowned Netscape (a company that deserved it btw).
They’ve used their closed and changing protocols to ensure connectivity in a mixed environment is just obnoxious enough to require very bright admin to make it all sort of work out. And here the EU is calling them on it and making them document their protocols (something everyone else (with equivalent position and stature) does, btw).
They use their market position to scare vendors off of alternatives. They refuse to abide by their return policy but shove it off to vendors instead, whom they do not force to stick to the return policy.
And now instead of defending themselves legitimately in a court they are pleading to a public who has no say in the matter (save political say, which shouldn’t enter the equation in an incomplete proceeding).
Microsoft’s best argument is an appeal to the majority.
Interesting thing about the article is that they claim that people can interoperate, then they claim that if they document things to let people interoperate they will give up their intellectual property.
Now, the funny thing with information is that reproduction of it is virtually free. So, if you need to have their IP to interoperate, and people have interoperated, then we have their IP now? So, what do y’all have to lose again?
They used their desktop place to get IE’s foot in the door, then their coughers to keep it there until they drowned Netscape (a company that deserved it btw).
Not according to the courts though. Go read up, and you’ll find that the courts ruled that they did NOT use their desktop monopoly to gain a monopoly in the browser market.
From COURT’S FINDINGS OF FACT
URL: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#iva
72. As soon as Netscape released Navigator on December 15, 1994, the product began to enjoy dramatic acceptance by the public; shortly after its release, consumers were already using Navigator far more than any other browser product. This alarmed Microsoft, which feared that Navigator’s enthusiastic reception could embolden Netscape to develop Navigator into an alternative platform for applications development. In late May 1995, Bill Gates, the chairman and CEO of Microsoft, sent a memorandum entitled “The Internet Tidal Wave” to Microsoft’s executives describing Netscape as a “new competitor ?born’ on the Internet.” He warned his colleagues within Microsoft that Netscape was “pursuing a multi-platform strategy where they move the key API into the client to commoditize the underlying operating system.” By the late spring of 1995, the executives responsible for setting Microsoft’s corporate strategy were deeply concerned that Netscape was moving its business in a direction that could diminish the applications barrier to entry.
Sigh. Yet again, that was the original ruling which was partly overturned by a later court.
See and earlier comment of mine:
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14162&comment_id=109821
Yeah yeah, but that does not overrule the part that MS wa s a monopoly.
Only the punishment was changed.
Actually MS WAS convicted for being monopoly, and this wasn’t changed later on.
Only the actual punishment was changed.
Yes, I know that. The link I provided even says that. But the ruling that they were trying to extend their monopoly into the browser market was overturned, and that was the point.
Yes, I know that. The link I provided even says that. But the ruling that they were trying to extend their monopoly into the browser market was overturned, and that was the point.
Yes the U.S. has the finest justice system that money can buy.
Interesting thing about the article is that they claim that people can interoperate, then they claim that if they document things to let people interoperate they will give up their intellectual property.
Now, the funny thing with information is that reproduction of it is virtually free. So, if you need to have their IP to interoperate, and people have interoperated, then we have their IP now?
Good example on how MS “interoperates” illustrated by how they embraced and extended Kerberos ( http://www.networkworld.com/news/2000/0511kerberos.html ) :
“In a paper filed in the antitrust trial on April 28, expert witness Rebecca Henderson, an MIT professor who supported the government’s proposed remedy of splitting Microsoft in two, concluded that because Microsoft hadn’t published those extensions, “no non-Microsoft server can utilize the security features of the PC operating system.”
Microsoft begs to differ, pointing out that it published the extensions on April 27 – timing which it claims is a pure coincidence. The Redmond, Wash., software monolith also argues that its version of Kerberos is fully interoperable.”
The message is clear : you want MS to provide documentation you have to threaten and cajole it out of them. They set the rules, now they shouldn’t be upset if we play the game.
Edited 2006-04-11 21:53
Microsoft is guilty of monopolistic practices. It was proven in the US, and it’s blatantly obvious elsewhere as well.
Blatantly obvious? You do realize that a charge of abuse of monopoly is practically impossible to defend against, right? Until you’re ruled a monopoly, you (as an organization) have no idea whether your practices violate any law. Once you ARE ruled to be a monopoly, practically any normal business tactic in which you attempt to leverage your existing products to sell additional products — which would otherwise be legal — suddenly become illegal.
hey used their desktop place to get IE’s foot in the door, then their coughers to keep it there until they drowned Netscape (a company that deserved it btw).
The courts found that MS’s integration of IE had an “anti-competitive effect” but the DOJ was never able to make its case that IE wasn’t a legitimate integration; consequently, they lost that point in court. Which is why IE remained integrated into Windows XP. Netscape would have drowned regardless. It basically ignored market demands from companies like AOL, who would have used Netscape if they had only provided APIs to embed the browser in their app. Netscape killed Netscape. Not MS.
They’ve used their closed and changing protocols to ensure connectivity in a mixed environment is just obnoxious enough to require very bright admin to make it all sort of work out. And here the EU is calling them on it and making them document their protocols (something everyone else (with equivalent position and stature) does, btw).
The technology behind the protocols predated any of the monopoly rulings; hence, the EU is really asking to retroactively punish MS for technology which is wholly unrelated to the original complaint of strong-arming OEMs, integrating IE, etc. And, in my opinion, it’s nothing more than a shell game to force MS to open up its protocols so that EU competitors can steal MS’s IP.
They use their market position to scare vendors off of alternatives. They refuse to abide by their return policy but shove it off to vendors instead, whom they do not force to stick to the return policy.
Gibberish.
And now instead of defending themselves legitimately in a court they are pleading to a public who has no say in the matter (save political say, which shouldn’t enter the equation in an incomplete proceeding). Microsoft’s best argument is an appeal to the majority.
Here’s a clue: Even the EU antitrust commission is subject to popular opinion. And, according to Fortune Magazine, MS is one of the most admired companies in the world: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/mostadmired/snapshots/879.ht…
So, obviously, PR counts for something.
Being a physicist and not a marketing/economy expert I might be wrong, so please correct me, if this is the case but : I thought the whole point was, that monopolies can (und very often do) operate quite outside regular market mechanisms (e.g. supply and demand), because of their sheer market power, and therefore anti-competative measurements must take place to balance this effects.
If you are the oldest child in a family, sometimes you have to play along other, subjectivly less fair rules, than your brothers and sisters (belive me, I’m an expert in this matters). And if you are by far the largest vendor in a market segment, you might face similar (subjectivly unfair) treatment.
I might be wrong too here, but AFAIK the anti-competition trial started after complaints about uncompetative behaviour were brought in front of the EU by competitors of Microsoft (Real for example, the most european company you can imagine, no?) and not because the comission thought one sunny day “Hey, we need money and bad publicity (among thoose, who admire Microsoft), lets be unfair against this american company !”.
Merely selling something along with your product is probably fine (although still problematic, if your decision to sell product A at no additional charge along with your main product can weep entire companies, their only mistake has been not to be per chance a subdivision of Microsoft or at least a close contract holder) but INTEGRATIG them into your product, so you can’t get rid of them, is a completly other story.
Sorry for ranting
Regards
Pardon me, but Microsoft HAS a monopoly with respect to desktop operating systems (at least I would consider a market share of around 90% in a key segment of information technology to be a monopoly). Being a monopolist is not against the law, but using (and esp. misusing) the own market share to diminish competition in related but nevertheless different market segments is (at least, to put it politely) VERY problematic.
I wouldn’t consider the DOJ vs. Microsoft settlment (that earned IIRC heavy criticisms back then, but that’s another topic) to be the same as a “non-guilty” verdict, just as a related sidenote.
Regards
PS: I’m an EU taxpayer, and I can completly assure you, that there are other, more pressing things that worry me about the current state of the EU, at least if I compare them to the issue of the costs, that this litigation process / trial (which could establish a level playing field for small to medium software houses here in Europe) produces or has already produced.
That’s your subjective opinion.
According to danish law it’s a monopoly. In Denmark you can be a monopoly even if you only have 40% of the market. Even according to american law MS is a monopoly.
In USA it was only the close Microsoft connection to the government that saved MS in the end.
Corruption in the american system saved MS – and nothing else.
Self-righteous crusade? Look, if the government does something against a monopoly then the complaint is that government is getting too involved in business. If they do nothing then the government is not helping the little guy.
That’s pretty naive. The fact of the matter is that government isn’t interested in “helping the little guy” at all. This case is all about taking intellectual property away from MS and handing it over to European competitors; thus, trying to shore up the Euro tech market. If you think that those competitors are going to lower the price of Windows or their own products, I’d have a nice bridge for sale.
*LOL*
Sometimes ur so funny
The EU recently warned Microsoft not to try with Vista the bundling tricks of old, which suggests to me that the EU is well aware of Microsoft’s strategy of stretching out legal proceedings for years while new generations of software emerge and the competition is put out of business before any resolution. Fines after umpteen appeals? Just the cost of maintaining your monopoly.
The EU has comepetition laws and Microsoft has been held to be in breach of them. If they can’t persuade the EU otherwise, then it’s going to cost them a great deal of money. A lot extra, probably, if Microsoft are judged to have been stringing things out with specious arguments. That’s really all there is to it.
Or they could just comply with the requests.
Basically, they are doing their best to throw their “power” around, by bullying Microsoft. I run Linux an overwhelming majority of the time (Ubuntu on my laptop, SUSE on my desktop), so any of you that want to call me a MS fanboy can just forget that idea. But, MS is NOT a monopoly. They can go after them for unfair business tactics, which would be a legitimate gripe. However, they need to realize that they are just making themselves out to be a laughing stock.
Who wants to bet that the EU is typing up their reports on a Windows box with MS Office?
Can you imagine if one of the distros like Novell’s SUSE were in the role that MS is in? Here you’d have an OS with an Office Suite bundled in, along with all of your multimedia apps, etc.. Imagine the belly-aching the EU would be doing then!!
Who wants to bet that the EU is typing up their reports on a Windows box with MS Office?
This is exactly the point. Most people are using MS software and this is preventing competition. They want MS to release the specs to their protocols so people can make compatible software. Compatibility is GOOD.
It’s not about breaking up a monopoly per se, more about giving competitors a fair shot by giving them access to the de facto standards on an equal footing.
But you’re making the argument that everything has to be based on MS’s specs. Why? I use OpenOffice when I use Windows. I don’t need MS Office to do my job. It’s hypocritical to complain about MS, yet support them by using their cash cow of Office, and saving your documents into their formats. I save mine in ODT format. Who is forcing your hand to save everything in MS’s format? Is it Microsoft or your employer?
Time to start thinking outside the box and start blaming those that are MAKING you use MS’s format, instead of blaming MS.
Okay, I’m starting to feel sick to my stomach now….defending MS..ugh.
Can you imagine if one of the distros like Novell’s SUSE were in the role that MS is in? Here you’d have an OS with an Office Suite bundled in, along with all of your multimedia apps, etc.. Imagine the belly-aching the EU would be doing then!!
Big difference: you can unintall all the apps that come pre-installed in any Linux distro. You can’t uninstall most of the “apps” that come with Windows. You don’t like Konqueror in your SuSE box? Then uninstall it and run Firefox. Try uninstalling Internet Explorer on Windows. Don’t like MPlayer for videos? Then uninstall it and run Xine. Try removing Windows Media Player from XP. Don’t like OpenOffice.org? Then uninstall it and use KOffice.
That’s the big difference between a Linux distro that ships with a tonne of applications pre-installed, and Windows that ships with a bunch of apps “integrated” into the OS.
Linux distros don’t integrate apps in such a way that you can’t remove them. They are just pre-installed.
@phoenix
Indeed, thats right. What it is, is having an open API that any one can write applications for competitively. With Linux & co. there is no hidden or secret API and no special hooks or integration between certain closed ‘lock-in’ applications. In effect a completely open system.
If there happened to be just a few distributors of the Linux OS, and they tried to write closed ‘lock-in’ applications into special hooks to provide special integratrion then this where the terms of the GPL come into play maintaining openness.
Furthermore, under the GPL licence, others may take the code and recompile it in their own or better way, and market it and sell it for profit.
However, if it was another company holding a monopoly, and using dirty monopolistic tactics to maintain market share (closed proprietary ‘lock-ins’, undocumented ‘hidden’ or ‘secret’ APIs etc), no matter where they are from, for the sake of a competitive free-market capitalist economy I would expect the Government Commission to go after them to return competition.
Actually Linux is not a very good example here, as its lack of binary interface effectively excludes all competitors/cooperators outside of the OSS realm.
Of course there are standard protocols that are used. But that’s far too little.
Actually if Linux based systems possesed majority of marketshare I would second a legislation that would impose binary stablilty and compatibility on Linux vendors.
Wrong, ABI is present in linux. You can produce functional binary that will work across all distributions (heard of LSB?). API/ABI interface and code are in fact open to inspection by anyone.
It’s driver binary interface that doesn’t exist, so it forces all developers to publish open driver code if they ever want to see it in kernel.
phoenix said:
“Big difference: you can unintall all the apps that come pre-installed in any Linux distro. You can’t uninstall most of the “apps” that come with Windows. You don’t like Konqueror in your SuSE box? Then uninstall it and run Firefox. Try uninstalling Internet Explorer on Windows. Don’t like MPlayer for videos? Then uninstall it and run Xine. Try removing Windows Media Player from XP. Don’t like OpenOffice.org? Then uninstall it and use KOffice.
That’s the big difference between a Linux distro that ships with a tonne of applications pre-installed, and Windows that ships with a bunch of apps “integrated” into the OS.
Linux distros don’t integrate apps in such a way that you can’t remove them. They are just pre-installed.”
more to the point dont even install it in the first place if you dont want to.
as for so called stealing IP to give to the EU,
do people forget that the countrys comprising the EU
are the main-stay producers of inovative apps that run
on the windows OS, MS and others mearly buy into that IP in one way or another then extend it with their
enevitable way etc.
if the EU wanted to so called ‘steal MS IP’ then all they need do is pass law to remove the ip protection and copyright laws that protect MS as part of the ongoing case in that given country/regen.
the biggest threat to the markets though would be if
MS re-wroye windows from the ground up (for real this time) and made it as fast as say BeOS, and as open as Linux or at least as open as any comercial OS can be.
that wont happen though as it would effect the annual
hardware upgrades and so on for instance.
Edited 2006-04-12 13:15
“Try uninstalling Internet Explorer on Windows”
I run FireFox whenever I have to use Windows. I installed it, set it as my default browser, and removed the shortcut for IE from my desktop. That one is fixed.
“Try removing Windows Media Player from XP.”
I use WinAmp for my MP3’s in Windows.. I set it as my default player. That one is fixed.
“Don’t like OpenOffice.org? Then uninstall it and use KOffice.”
I use OpenOffice in Windows. I don’t even have MS Office installed. So, why even throw in this comparison? It doesn’t fit into your argument, as only Notepad and Wordpad are included in Windows. Not a full feature Office Suite.
I understand where you’re trying to go with your argument, and it’s about not being able to uninstall applications easily. However, you are not stuck with having to use what came with it.
Again, I’m not taking up for MS here, but the crusade by the EU against that “evil American company” is just lame. Go after MS for their underhanded dealings with hardware manufacturers. Not for trying to put out a complete OS (well, as complete as Winblows can be).
I see my post was modded down. Will whoever did it have the fortitude to explain why they felt like modding down my post? No personal attacks, and it wasn’t off topic.
.. if you need a reason why someone would:
removed the shortcut for IE from my desktop. That one is fixed.
All the things that are broken/wrong with IE are still present on your system. You may not invoke them but malware, viruses and trojans still can. You haven’t fixed the problem, you have simply removed the source of it from your own hands [and perceptions it would seem]. It is still lthere waiting to bite you.
I use WinAmp for my MP3’s in Windows.. I set it as my default player. That one is fixed.
I don’t know of any security issues with Media Player and you can set WinAmp to be the default player. But WMP is still on your system whether you want it or not. MS decided that, not you. If you don’t feel bad about it then that’s not a problem [for you]. Not everyone sees that as MS’s decision to make about their computer though.
I use OpenOffice in Windows. I don’t even have MS Office installed. So, why even throw in this comparison?
Good point, actually. I didn’t go back to see what the OP was talking about, but your point seems well taken. I wouldn’t have modded you up or down on it though. It was just a common-sense statement IMO.
I understand where you’re trying to go with your argument, and it’s about not being able to uninstall applications easily. However, you are not stuck with having to use what came with it.
I’m not sure you actually do understand. Easily uninstalled or not the choice is being made for you and the fact that it is installed on your system means that other vendors don’t get to compete on the merits of their product unless the installed MS product doesn’t work or is so repugnant, or at least unacceptable, to the user that they make a point of replacing it.
This is why bundling non-OS packages like IE and WMP are an abuse of monopoly power. Not because you are forced to use them but because you weren’t offered a choice and the competitors weren’t allowed to present their wares on an equal footing.
Again, I’m not taking up for MS here, but the crusade by the EU against that “evil American company” is just lame.
It may be hard for others to see that hiding from what MS is doing by deleting shortcuts or installing replacements for what they have put on your computer and then declaring it OK for them to do it is not somehow sticking up for them. Especially when you vilify those who are attempting to remedy the market abuses that don’t offend you personally. MS got into this as a result of complaints to the EC by other evil American companies, so blaming it on the EU/EC is just latent xenophobia that doesn’t rise to a conscious level. How does that rate on the lame/not lame scale?
Go after MS for their underhanded dealings with hardware manufacturers.
Strangely enough they did get nailed on this over here. It is still pretty much pervasive though because the manufacturers can increase their profit margins by including [only] MS OSes on their machines. If they obey MS’s rules about how the OS is billed to the customer they can make even higher margins by getting the maximum discount on OEM license agreements. If I were modding you I would be inclined to mod you up on this point simply because it is an emotional issue with me, not because it is an outstanding insight. They already got hit on this and basically nothing changed but you don’t seem to be aware of that.
Thanks for your reply.
From what I took from your post, it is wrong for Microsoft to include any non-OS applications with Windows. How far would that go though? Calculator, Paint, Solitaire..would those need to be removed? While those are just minor little programs, and pose no security risks, there are companies out there that produce software that could replace those.
The main question is where does the line get drawn in what you are given? Personally, I have no problem with Microsoft bundling as much as they’d like in their OS. I agree that no being able to uninstall it is an issue, though. Such as the case with I.E. However, as long as I’m not forced to use their products, and I’m allowed to use alternatives, then I’m really okay with it.
Before I go on, I do want to say that I’m not just trying to defend MS for the sake of defending them. I’m just keeping an open mind about this.
“But WMP is still on your system whether you want it or not.”
Microsoft tried putting out a version of XP without WMP on it. It didn’t sell. Nobody wanted it.
My view is this. If I had to purchase an OS, then I don’t want it to be crippled. I’d want it to have every feature available, so it can work “right out of the box”. I’d even want Windows to make sure DVD’s play out of the box, without me having to install additional software. Alot of people have this exact same view.
Now, with how that’s anti-competitive for other companies. If one company produces a better product, then I’ll use that product. However, most companies don’t seem to market it at all. I realize that start up companies can’t really do that because they just don’t have the capital to do so. Most companies use “word of mouth” and a banner here, and a banner there to get their name out there. That’s not really gonna do it. If Microsoft made it where only MS products could be installed, and other companies had to pay a royalty to MS for their product to be installed, then I’d be jumping up and down screaming the same thing alot of people on here are screaming. But, that’s not the case.
One of the bigger problems isn’t really MS, but people who are too computer illiterate to install the software themselves that you are suggesting should be removed. I still have people give me blank looks when I say “web browser”. If those people were to get a “bare bones” operating system, do you think they’d be able to get it setup to be productive themselves? No, they wouldn’t be able to. They need to have a media player included, and a web browser included. They would just be either:
1. Too ignorant to know how to install these apps themselves.
2. Unwilling to learn how to install any apps themselves.
That’s just the sad state of things with people’s knoweldge of computers, and their willingness to learn more. They just want a complete package out of the box that does everything that they want and need it to do, without having to purchase additional software for their PC’s.
This isn’t xenophobia at all. Perhaps the culture is just that much different between the US and the European nations. A typical AOL user here in the US is too dumb to install anything on their computer, and doesn’t want to know how to do it. Is the knowledge and computer skills of the average European that much better? I wouldn’t think that there would be that huge of a difference between the average US computer user and the average EU computer user. Saying my problem is just because it’s a foreign commission going after a “home company” rates high on the lame scale.
Let me ask you this. If MS shipped an OS with absolutely nothing included in it, and that version was placed on all the new shipped PC’s, what do you think the average joe is gonna think about it? Is he gonna be happy and satisfied with his purchase of a “seemingly” crippled PC? Or, would he be more happy with an OS that had everything that the needed and wanted and it worked right out of the box?
I’m not defending MS’s tactics and things that they have done. One thing that they should get absolutely slammed for (and maybe they did, I’m not sure) was their optimized code for Intel. Code that would have worked just as fine on AMD. What did ever come of that? Their deals with hardware vendors, PC manufacturers, etc.. Those are all abuse of it’s monopoly. I just don’t think trying to put out as complete of a system as they can goes against that, as long as they allow me to install any alternative software to what is included.
PS – I’m a Linux user. Ubuntu on my laptop, Suse on my desktop (gonna buy Novell’s Enterprise Desktop as soon as it comes out). I only use XP at work for one specific application that won’t run right under Wine.
I wasn’t replying to your OP, I was in the process of writing an explanaition similar to what glarepate did, but he did it so much better than I would have been able to do (English is only my third language, and it takes me very long to express myself when I try to use it, it’s for me a bit if I’m forced to write scitific code in Basic 🙂 ). So I will try to share my view on some of the points you brought up and try to explain, why at least I see things a littlebit different:
>From what I took from your post, it is wrong for >Microsoft to include any non-OS applications with >Windows. How far would that go though? Calculator, >Paint, Solitaire..would those need to be removed?
According to my view: A cagey “no”. It should be possible at all to remove this features. The ability to get rid of components and replace them with other programs shoud – for non system critical parts – be at least a possibility.
>The main question is where does the line get drawn in >what you are given?
Again : When non-system critical parts (and even if it is crucial to have a browser on a modern desktop, it shouldn’t be mandatory to have one.) can get replaced by equivalent alternatives, this is (I guess) OK for competitors, customers and OEMs as well.
>Microsoft tried putting out a version of XP without >WMP on it. It didn’t sell. Nobody wanted it.
Was this version available as a retail product? Did they advertized it? Did they give a decent discount in terms of money they charged for it (since you get less functionality)? Would OEMs risk their low-price contracts by asking for such a version, esp. if you ask yourself what they would have to gain by such a step ?
I might be living under a rock, but I can myself give on all this questions only “No” as an answer.
>If one company produces a better product, then I’ll >use that product.
You would do it, but as you stated correctly below, you aren’t the norm. Most users don’t recognize they have an alternative, if the only thing they are ever exposed to are the things, that came shrinkwrapped with their computer.
>However, most companies don’t seem to market it at >all. I realize that start up companies can’t really do >that because they just don’t have the capital to do >so. Most companies use “word of mouth” and a banner >here, and a banner there to get their name out there. >That’s not really gonna do it. If Microsoft made it >where only MS products could be installed, and other >companies had to pay a royalty to MS for their product >to be installed, then I’d be jumping up and down >screaming the same thing alot of people on here are >screaming. But, that’s not the case.
Sadly (at least from my point of view, and I seem to share this view with others here), Microsoft – by accident or by intend – can decide, what a majority of people around the world consider as their default applications. Most of the times they don’t do it by open, brute force (exclude Chairs and Mr. Ballmer from this statement, thanks), they do so by using their sheer market power. You are an inovative, young startup, trying to sell a product (just stick to browsers, although I wouldn’t limit myself to that)? In many cases (esp., if your product isn’t by far better then the established MS defaults, addresses a niche segment and is cheaper than “included, when you buy the computer”) it’s bad luck and the privilege to sit in your garage 20 years to late.
Microsoft controlls (by market size) protocols and interfaces to the #1 desktop OS. MS controlls large segments of the (esp. for the less computer literate persons you mentioned) important OEM market, again via marktet share and very aggressive pricing schemes. MS has a track record of not-to-play-by-the-gamebook when it comes to implementation of protocolls and standards, often makes it difficult to impossible to actualy get your product on working terms with MS Windows, which is only possible to that extend by relying on their market share.
MS has the ability (and demonstrated the will to do so) to lock customers into solutions, solutions that aren’t the free choices of customers, at least not by the markted principles of supply and demand, but by their market size and monopoly position.
Most people seem to put me into the “liberal person” bin, compared to the standards of my country/community (by applying american standards, I would probably pass the “whacky commie / socialist” hurdle with grace and hands down, so be alarmed 🙂 )
But I believe strongly, that there are limits as to when a market / economical system can regulate itself. And Microsoft has helped dramtically to pass this treshhold for the whole IT market in the past, which makes it IMHO necessary to expose them to different measures, when it’s apropriate. If competitors (Real & Co) tell the EU : “You have a legislation, that should provide me a level playing field and this company misuses it’s power and hinders me to enjoy my rights”, then the EU is bound to investigate this. Period. Anti-compatitive complains against Microsoft are also pending(?) in Asia (South Korea, Japan, if my memory serves me right), so this isn’t a local EU vs. US thing either.
I hope, I was able to help you understand my point of view, thanks for the patience.
Yep. Now I understand exactly what you’re saying. We just have differing views. Thanks for replying. I even modded ya up for a very good post (even if I disagree with it). :o)
Thanks for your reply.
(Just to clarify things up : I wasn’t the one, who modded you down in the first place either)
You are very much entitled to your views, and agreeing to not agree is my prefered outcoming of such discussions.
Regards & Thank you for your time and your opinion
.
So if you disable Microsoft and allow Redhat to do the same thing what is the difference?
The difference with Microsoft and Intel is that they are American companies.
BLllaahh…
Another MS-apologist.
We are not anti-american. This is about a corrupt company (MS) supported by a corrupt government (USA), and the combination of this is making life a hell on the software front.
We are merely doing what most americans are hoping you could do at home.
Quit whining and start praising.
Redhat is also an American…. sorry, US company too.
idiot
If you are a company that becomes too sucessful and you are an American company you will be taken down by the EU and you will lose money.
They want EU companies to profit and this is just another way to do that.
This isn’t about justice at all.
I’d almost have to agree with you a little here. I think if MS were a European company, the EU wouldnt be comming down so hard on them.
Even if the EU is indeed being rather unfair to MS, dont expect to hear any of the anti MS zealots to think so. In their anti MS cult like religion, anything to harm MS is a good thing whether its done fairly or not.
I do expect to get some flaming (apparently if you back MS then youre either an idiot or just some paid guy from MS) but if someone can come up with a better product for me than Windows XP, then I’ll make the switch. IMO every operating system is going to require some sort of compromise from the user, and Windows XP requires the fewest compromises out of me.
Actually they would.
We have had several cases of this kind in Denmark in 2005.
Please do research before spreading such nonsens. Don’t post one more word until you have researched the entire court rulings of any country in EU (pretty fast to do with Google).
This is not the case.
It’s not about giving EU companies (there are no such thing btw.) a chance for profit.
This is actually about interoperability and about breaking the rules of free market competition.
According to MS’ own internal mails, Windows API was suddenly changed with the only reason that they wanted to destroy Netscape and WordPerfect. This behaviour can be seen in everything MS does – and that’s what this is about.
Please do remember, that european companies are getting the same treatment as well.
Microsoft is fined not because they are monopoly, not because they are successful, but because they use their monopoly power to stay in monopoly level, to destroy other companies and markets. It is illegal, because it destroys marketing as supply/demand system.
For example, I don’t get Microsoft power games around OpenDocument and their formats – it makes me wonder does they don’t believe that their Office is the best? If I where in Microsoft position, I would embrace OpenDocument and made best Office suite – and people would still buy it!
It makes me wonder why also they have so big problems to roll out feature rich, good working version of next Windows – didn’t they have lot of money?
As I see it, Microsoft is obssesed with power and wants to keep it. They don’t make business decisions anymore. They want all – or nothing.
I see the haters, the OSS fundies, are out here voting down any posts that goes against their wishful reality.
Keep it up boys. Or should I say down.
Those who wonder about it all, just raed the text by the EU.
Google for:
Case COMP/C-3/37.792
Download the pdf and enjoy.
I see the haters, the OSS fundies, are out here voting down any posts that goes against their wishful reality.
No, we vote down posts that are incorrect, fantasy, or just plain trolling.
People have mentioned anti-US bias in these comments; and I just think that even though it isn’t anti-US sentiment, it’s our right if it is, no?
Freedom of speech and all
@Beta
No, we vote down posts that are incorrect, fantasy, or just plain trolling.
Wrong on all count. All I see it bashing US, corporations and Windows.
Perhaps it’s me, but I found it somehow irritating, that your comments included either no hard facts for backing up your findings (Just as an example : If all you see in the comments is bashing of the US, corporations per se and/or Windows, would you care to elaborate where I did any of this in my comments, since they are part of the “all” you’re seeing ?) or ignore the thing most people seem to whitness as “reality” (the part with microsoft not having a monopoly position).
I’ve neither modded you down (I try to save my votes for modding up insightful comments and modding the ” [softwareX, written with at least 4 spelling mistakes] rUleZ, [software/person/whatever/…] Sucks”- oneliner crowd down) , nor do I feel guilty of bashing any of the entities mentioned by you (neither rhetorically, nor in reality, btw.), but I can *understand* why someone might put your outputs in the “trollish” bin.
BTW: sappyvcv’s comments weren’t modded down, because (I guess so) he backed up his opinions with data and external informations and/or wrote his comments in a neutral language. (I don’t happen to share some of his views, but ain’t that one of the reasons we discuss something ?)
Enough said
So if you disable Microsoft and allow Redhat to do the same thing what is the difference?
Unlike Microsoft, Red Hat provides the source codes to the public under GPL making possible to create other distros such as CentOS, Scientific Linux, Tao Linux. Only binaries and trademark are closed.
Stating that Red Hat is the Microsoft of Linux is the stupidest statement that even some developers/users who don’t like Red Hat will defend the former.
I wasn’t able to edit aboves comment, so sorry for the pesky typos that I glitched over. I was trying to point out, that the sell included also selling of services around your product. It is telling, that (correct me if I’m wrong) the first inroads in MS “important” market shares were visible with the availability of FOSS software, that was able to compete not only on terms of price, but in terms of quality (Linux is ready for MY desktop since 2000, but I know, that I’m not a typical case to make a study 🙂 ).
I wan’t all competitors in the IT market to compete by their products and not (as the main factor) by their market share. I hope that’s clear now.
Regards