Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft To Fight Korean Verdict

Posted by Zonk on Mon Mar 27, 2006 02:51 PM
from the the-man-fighting-the-man dept.
Microsoft Government The Courts Politics News
DocHart wrote to mention a BBC article covering Microsoft's appeal against their recent Korean ruling. From the article: "The KFTC continued to investigate Microsoft's practices, despite the firm paying Daum $30m in November to end their dispute. The ruling of the KFTC echoes a similar 2004 judgement by the European Commission, which also found that Microsoft was abusing its market domination. Microsoft's rivals have since accused the firm of dragging its feet over unbundling its software in Europe, something Microsoft denies. "
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Microsoft Accuses European Union of Collusion 265 comments
GarbagePailKid wrote to mention the news that Microsoft has filed a formal complaint alleging that the EU colluded with company rivals and hid critical documents during the EU regulation hearings. According to Microsoft: "While the documents provided do not include the direct correspondence between the commission and its technical experts, they show that the commission, the trustee, and Microsoft's adversaries were secretly collaborating throughout the fall of 2005 in a manner inconsistent with the commission's role as neutral regulator and the Trustee's role as independent monitor..."
[+] Your Rights Online: Microsoft Faces Korean Deadline 156 comments
nmccart wrote to mention an article on the Yahoo! news service stating that South Korea has leveled a deadline at Microsoft. The deadline is the newest addition to that country's anti-trust ruling against the OS maker."South Korea's antitrust regulator has given Microsoft Corp. the deadline of Aug. 24 to comply with a landmark ruling ordering the world's largest software maker to unbundle some of its products from its Windows computer operating system and pay fines. On Friday afternoon, the Fair Trade Commission said it has sent documents on the punitive sanctions to Microsoft, which was ruled last December to have violated the nation's fair trade laws by tieing its instant messenger, audio, and video software to Windows. The commission also confirmed its order that Microsoft pay 32.4 billion won (US$33.5 million) in the December ruling on the U.S. software giant's unfair business practices."
[+] EU Says Microsoft Still Not Compliant 339 comments
what about writes "News.com is reporting that the European Union still doesn't consider Microsoft in compliance with its anti-trust ruling." From the article: "Should the Commission issue a final decision against Microsoft, the software giant would face a retroactive fine of $2.36 million a day for the period between Dec. 15 and the date the final decision is issued. The Commission may then take additional steps to extend the daily fine until Microsoft complies with the order. The Commission's letter is just the latest action it has taken in the closely watched antitrust case. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Microsoft To Fight Korean Verdict 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Hasn't Microsoft seen the commercials? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Nothing beats KFC.

    Oh wait, KFTC? Carry on, then.

  • first 3 posts (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tachikoma (878191) on Monday March 27 2006, @03:05PM (#15005235)
    seem too MS friendly to be genuine /. posts
    perhaps you are here by mistake?

  • Dragging their feet? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RandoX (828285) on Monday March 27 2006, @03:09PM (#15005265)
    Judging by the revolving release date of Vista, I wouldn't say they're capable of doing the unbundling any faster. Let's face it. That's how long it's taking them to do something that they really really want to get finished...
  • This isn't really news. It's long been clear that Microsoft will fight every ruling against them in Korea or anywhere else using any methods to hand. And if you were sitting on a vast monopoly with gross margins of up to 85 per cent to protect, with captains of industry and heads of government queuing up to kiss your ass, you probably would too.
  • ...The KFTC continued to investigate Microsoft's practices, despite th...

    For some reason I really want fried chicken.
  • Design a computer with tcp/ip, http, ftp, etc native onboard with a basic interface. It connects and downloads whatever OS you want and installs it without an OS already being onboard beyond the "super bios" skeleton OS there for doing the aforementioned primary OS download. That ends the chicken and egg argument as to having to have one OS already on there to download the OS you really want. No more "Windows tax", no more preloaded PCs unless you order them that way. Everything is bare.

    DRM? Fine, put it on

    • Re:would someone explain to me (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dotpavan (829804) on Monday March 27 2006, @02:56PM (#15005159) Homepage
      every bsd and linux distro are chock full of bundled applications. why can't windows do the same?

      because they arent the underdogs?

      • > > every bsd and linux distro are chock full of bundled applications. why can't windows do the same?
        >
        >because they arent the underdogs?

        And because in Korea, only old underdogs can bundle an episode of chair-throwing with their opera*WOOF*fling*THUNK*
        NO CARRIER

        (Have no fear, the guy who'll fucking bury Google is here!)

      • Re:would someone explain to me (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gstoddart (321705) on Monday March 27 2006, @03:15PM (#15005319) Homepage
        every bsd and linux distro are chock full of bundled applications. why can't windows do the same?

        because they arent the underdogs?

        And, most importantly, you can choose which pieces you want to install, and only have the ones you want. They're just on the distribution as a courtesy.

        There is a difference between saying "here is your OS, and by the way, we've included scads of optional stuff you can install or not as you wish" and the Microsoft position of "here is your OS, we've also given your our media player, conveniently given you links to drive you to MSN and Passport, and given you no way to choose not to install them".

        Those components come with the base OS and need to be separately uninstalled, if it can be uninstalled at all.

        In the article, they say "Korean customers can easily download rival systems", well, why not put the competitors on equal footing and allow you do download the MS offerings if you want? They defend it as saying that people wouldn't know how, or it's too much hassle; but tout it as a perfectly good way to get the competitors products -- the difference is the competitors don't have the same luxury of shoving the apps down the user's throats when they install the OS.

        Meaning they get to ensure that since everyone is going to have their OS, that the user should be presented with their (often crappy) apps first. Want to include 'em in your distribution and make them truly optional components go ahead. Want to make them installed and entrenched from the get go, not a good plan.

        If users had to always find and install the apps they needed ( or at least choose them ), they would understand that the defaults provided are neither required, nor always 'best of breed'. When people get the MS stuff by default, they just assume they have to do it.

        I totally agree you should be able to buy a Windows operating system without getting the implied Microsoft bundled applications, which keep causing secutiry issues for people who don't otherwise know better.
        • I totally agree you should be able to buy a Windows operating system without getting the implied Microsoft bundled applications, which keep causing secutiry issues for people who don't otherwise know better.

          Isn't this why they have the Windows "N" versions?

          • Is windows "N" the dominant windows version? Providing the option at the same price does not alter the way MS is anticompetitive. People who will buy windows "N" are the same people that use alternative media players anyway (providing you can find windows N on the shelves, where I live it wasn't). So the damage to microsoft's plan to leverage its monopoly: Zero. The EU was 'outsmarted' on this one. I hope it has people with a clue on board this time. A better plan would be to somehow make MS sell windows N
        • Additionally when you look at the linux/*bsd distros they usually have multiple choices for software, ie you want a video player, you can choice xanim, mplayer, xine you want an IDE eclipse, kdevelop, emacs (which is really everything), glade.

          You get choices on what you install and no particular product is promoted over another by the distro, excluding desktops which usually has a default but even there you have the choice on other desktops that you can install.

          Microsoft does no such thing they say here yo

    • Re:would someone explain to me (Score:4, Informative)

      by Fanboy Troy (957025) on Monday March 27 2006, @02:57PM (#15005172)
      Because the unbundling can't be done. Believe it or not, some people actually exclude some of their users [slashdot.org], relying on the point that microsoft bundled products are on 90% of all systems world wide. same with wmp. This lets microsoft leverage its monopoly to gain market share in other fields like media. Simply anti-competetive.
    • what is so bad about bundling?

      Maybe this [slashdot.org] can refresh your memory.

      If Microsoft didn't bundle internet explorer, both IE and Netscape would keep fighting to deliver better, more secure products. It's been 10 years since Windows 95 came out, and viruses have multiplied via internet explorer security flaws.

        • MS may have killed Netscape, but only by pulling the trigger. Netscape had already shoved the gun barrel down it's own throat.

          Yes, but I'm not talking about Netscape's death. I'm talking about MSIE's artificial domination of the market and their most stupid idea (created to "compete" with Netscape's plugins) in the world: ActiveX. The thing was a hacker's dream come true. I still remember the days where you could open an infected webpage, and a vbscript would be created on your harddrive, filling your compu

    • Re:would someone explain to me (Score:5, Insightful)

      by QuietLagoon (813062) on Monday March 27 2006, @03:04PM (#15005229)
      Bundling in and of itself is not a bad thing. Having a monopoly in and of itself is legal. However, when you use your monopoly to gain leverage from bundled products in order to eliminate competition, that is a bad thing; and that is what Microsoft has been found guilty of doing.
    • First, a market controlling position. Second, the unability to unbundle.

      No BSD or Linux distro has a similar market domination as Windows. Even RedHat, being one of the key players in the Linux market, has no position to dictate which software is to be "in" the fold and which one is "out". RedHat (and other distributors) also neither offer key software themselves, nor do they set a standard (besides .rpms, for which the specs are open and every distributor can implement a routine to make use of them).

      Also,
    • You might be able to say that BSD and Linux distros also come bundled with media and communications applications, but the point is that this is free software and many distros usually come pre-installed with many 'competing' applications (multiple browsers, multiple mail clients).

      With Windows, Microsoft always bundles one browser and one mail client, and both are made by Microsoft. They never include browsers or mail clients made by their competitors; if they did, other companies wouldn't be dragging them
    • what is so bad about bundling?

      Nothing.

      every bsd and linux distro are chock full of bundled applications. why can't windows do the same?

      You're comparing fluffy kitten apples with ninja oranges. Microsoft can redistribute everything the top distro provide. The reverse is not true.

      Bundling is a tactic microsoft use to gain competetive advantage (and this in itself isn't too bad - look at Apple's use of it) - but Microsoft take it further then they should, using their dominance in one market to attempt to gain
    • In the general case, it is not true that bundling is always bad. It may be bad in specific cases though. I won't presume to judge here, but I'll draw what I think are the critical distinctions. The examples you cite (linux and bsd) are different, because bundling, say OpenOffice doesn't preclude your getting OpenOffice from someplace else. If Microsoft bundled OpenOffice with Windows, I don't think anyone would complain ;-)

      Microsoft bundling, say, Media Player is different for two reasons: (1) Media Play
      • Microsoft bundling, say, Media Player is different for two reasons: (1) Media Player is not available for other platforms. (2) Microsoft is bundling two of its OWN products together and (3) Microsoft has a desktop monopoly.

        I forgot (4) A fanatical devotion to the Pope.
      • I see what you are saying, but this type of stuff is a silly line to draw. And people only do it with microsoft.

        Microsoft was trying to improve their operating system by including functionality into the OPERATING system by default. What people call bundling I call integration. This is a distinction made only be software people, and it is really only made by disgruntled software people (IE Netscape, AOL) and states looking for money.

        So, in essence, its crap, but because MS was considered a monopoly (also cra
    • Once you become a monopoly different rules apply. Now you ask why should diffent rules apply? It is to prevent abuse of "monpoly power". So what is "monpoly power" and how can it be abused? Here is an extreame example: Let's say I'm "The Water Company", the only company that can supply water to your house. It would be easy for me to abuse this power. Let's say I jack the rates up by 10X but offer you a 90% discount if you buy tires at some tire company I'm trying to start up. So you'd be stuck. Ei
    • A piece of software bundled with the defacto monopoly operating system can (and has) destroy the potential market for that type of software.

      If you want to learn more about the legal basis for various countries' actions agaist Microsoft, do some Google searches related to anti-trust laws.
      • "While neither region is able to take on the US militarily or culturally"

        Militarily I can understand.

        But culturally? Surely, you jest?

        I'm not one of those who says the US has no culture, but saying that neither Europe nor Asia can take on the US culturally is quite a statement.
          • Thanks. That is exactly how I meant it. Take a look at France, and their not allowing government officials to use certain words (e-mail is one funny example). Certain countries think they can "protect" their culture by decree. France is one of the most extreme examples.
    • You could order your fries without salt. And I'm pretty sure McD would make it possible.

      If you're a country, you could even rule that McD has to offer its fries without salt, and they'll comply.

      The basis is abusing a monopoly position to kill competition. Back when I was young, monopolies were considered BAD in the US.
      • You could order your fries without salt. And I'm pretty sure McD would make it possible.

        Actually, no. They'd need to have a clean fry tray. They salt the fries in the same heat tray that they store them in before they're packaged. Even if they emptied the fry tray (for your special order), there would still be residual salt from prior orders. And if you think that Mickey D's is going to take on the liability of having some flunky manually trying to transfer your hot, unsalted fries from a dripping fry

      • Re:Totally Unfair (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bill_kress (99356) on Monday March 27 2006, @06:03PM (#15006889)
        Back when I was young, monopolies were considered BAD in the US.

        Me too. I'm afraid Reagan ushered in a new age of stupidity in otherwise smart people.

        So many of these new "free marketeers" are simply 100% ignorant of the ramifications of their beliefs. They have thought it out, and being otherwise intelligent people have decided that greed makes sense and if everyone would just be completely greedy, we'd have this perfect world...

        It takes a faith stronger than any Christians' to continue to believe in a completely free market in the face of massive evidence that it needs significant controls, so trying to reason with them isn't useful. Also, remember that many of these people are quite smart and used to being right--it's much more difficult for such an individual to recognize when he's got good logic but is working from bad assumptions.

        I think we have to wait for the next reset, probably a massively serious depression, before we swing back to a more worker-based system. Maybe next time we'll pass a few more permanent laws so that the next wave of "neo rich" can't dismantle them so easily.

        Americans (Humans?) have such short memories and are doomed to repeat their mistakes no matter how clearly those who actually understand try to explain.
    • My God, when will people get it? Okay one more time...
      Microsoft has a monopoly in the PC operating area. If you have a product that you want to sell but Microsoft bundles a similar product into its monopoly product it will kill your product. People will use the bundled product just because it's there.

      Microsoft typically uses their monopoly position to expand into other, non-related areas. If for example they want to control web browsers they simply bundle (and in this case integrate) their browser into
      • It is commonly agreed that Netscape 4.x and the first releases of Netscaped 6 sucked big juicy donkey nuts. I can't imagine them keeping any sort of lead over IE even if MS only offered it as a free download. In fact, they were getting owned by IE4 before Win98 was ever released.

        • Re:Totally Unfair....NOT! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by robertjw (728654) on Monday March 27 2006, @04:13PM (#15005907) Homepage
          Apple's iTunes has such a large presence on Windows Machines.

          Umm... that was the whole point. The gp said:

          If you have a product that you want to sell but Microsoft bundles a similar product into its monopoly product it will kill your product.

          Microsoft doesn't have a product competitive to iTunes yet, when they do they can use their monopolistic advantage to promote it.
    • Actually, it's funny you compare it to salted fries from McD's. Fact is, each and every time I've ever asked McD's for unsalted fries, I got it that way. Believe it or not, as a company they actually care about whatever concerns the customer. Of course, I'm rarely concerned about it being salted... I'm actually more concerned about it being HOT. Actually asking for "no salt" is just the mechanism I use instead of asking for "please give me hot fresh fries" which would result in at least a bit more resis
    • It's not so much that the EU said "MS abuses its monopoly, so they pay XXX $". The EU court decided that MS abuses its monopoly to curb competition and development, and ruled that MS has to stop abusing its position. In case they do not comply with the court's ruling, they have to pay a penalty.

      Im my books, companies are corporate bodies, and as such, they have to respect the law. Just like I have to. If I break the law, and am considered guilty, I have to pay a fine.

      Why should it be different for corporati

    • Re:Extortion? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Roy Ward (14216) <[zn.oc.xirtca] [ta] [077drawyor]> on Monday March 27 2006, @03:21PM (#15005379)
      Is MS really that evil that they are breaking laws all over the world illegally using their defacto monopoly?

      Yes. In many places (including the USA), a monopoly has extra rules it must follow to avoid abusing it's position.
    • There just seems to be a trend of "let's figure out something to prosecute MS for".

      "Hey, why not prosecute them for their illegal abuses of monopoly power?"

      "Brilliant! Have a Guinness."

      What's the conspiracy again? I could believe selective enforcement (provided other companies who appear to be getting away with similar acts), but Microsoft has been found to be abusing their monopoly in the U.S., Europe, and now Korea.

      But in answer to your first question, it becomes state-sponsored extortion at the point w

    • Justice (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Silent sound (960334) on Monday March 27 2006, @03:44PM (#15005582)
      Is MS really that evil that they are breaking laws all over the world illegally using their defacto monopoly?

      They were convicted of breaking the law in America.

      The court trial in which they were convicted of breaking the law in America never reached the remedy/punishment phase. A new political administration simply quietly terminated the antitrust case with some handwaving before it could complete, with no real-world steps taken to stop Microsoft's existing antitrust violations or prevent them in future.

      So Microsoft broke the law in America, was convicted in a court of law, and no one ever did anything to make them stop breaking the law. So is it that surprising that they're breaking the law in the rest of the world as well?

      I don't see why Microsoft apologists keep falling back on this talking point of claiming that these fines and such are all about the money. If Microsoft would obey the law, they wouldn't have to pay these fines and settlements and whatnot. The power to end these fines is in Microsoft's hands. Microsoft prefers to pay fines and settlements rather than obey the law. What terrible extortionists these horrible statist states are, making Microsoft pay money until they stop doing illegal things. Who do they think they are? They're almost acting like they think they're autonomous countries with the power to pass and enforce laws within their own borders.

      • So, soon we will learn which is more powerful. US government, S. Korean government, or the almighty buck.

        The US conviction and lack of punishment or change by Microsoft showed that the buck is more powerful in the US.

        We will see what S. Korea does...

      • They were convicted of breaking the law in America.

        Except this lawsuit is in South Korea and doesn't have anything to do with the Netscape vs. IE bundling case. The complaint South Korea has filed relates to including Windows Messenger as part of Windows, which a South Korean firm named "Daum Communications" claims is impeding their ability to compete in the IM market.

        The point is, every country on the planet has some little company which makes a product that competes with something inside Windows. S

        • Microsoft may not have known about Daum Communications specifically, but they absolutely knew about other companies in the instant messenger space. AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, etc. Microsoft actively spent time trying to make MSN Messenger interop with AOL in late 1999/early 2000, only to have AOL constantly break the protocol they were using, until Microsoft finally gave up. (This isn't speculation - I worked at MSFT. I ran the Messenger betas that worked with AIM.)

          I'd be hard pressed to believe that bundling Win

    • At what point does extracting money from Microsoft become state sponsored extortion? Is MS really that evil that they are breaking laws all over the world illegally using their defacto monopoly?

      At what point does extracting huge gobs of money from every nation in the world on terms they have no control over NOT become corporate extortion and economic subservience?

      Yes, of course they have a defacto monopoly. When 90-95% of all computers run a Windows OS, how the heck is that not a de-facto monopoly? When M

    • But isn't there some limit to the "bundling hurts others" argument? In this case: "Microsoft is appealing against a South Korean ruling that it must unbundle its media player and messaging service from its Windows software system."

      What's next? Fining them for including Paint, Mine Sweeper, NotePad, and the Calculator?

      - Jasen.

    • Re:Extortion? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tom (822)
      I suspect all these countries that go after MS still have MASSIVE installed bases of MS software. Are all these fines just a round about way of getting lower license costs?

      Only in the same way that going after drug dealers is a way to get cheaper sports cars onto the market. In other words: Yes, if you insist on some really convoluted thinking, you can construct that being the case. For everyone who likes Ockham's Razor better, the case is simple close-and-shut: Criminal company breaks law and gets sued.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.