Slashdot Log In
Microsoft To Fight Korean Verdict
Posted by
Zonk
on Mon Mar 27, 2006 03:51 PM
from the the-man-fighting-the-man dept.
from the the-man-fighting-the-man dept.
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. "
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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Hasn't Microsoft seen the commercials? (Score:2, Funny)
Oh wait, KFTC? Carry on, then.
first 3 posts (Score:3, Funny)
perhaps you are here by mistake?
Dragging their feet? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:4, Insightful)
because they arent the underdogs?
Parent
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2)
>
>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)
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.
Parent
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
I can explain (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
ActiveX (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Parent
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:3, Insightful)
2 reasons (Score:2)
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
Also,
Re:Totally Unfair (Score:2)
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.
Re:Totally Unfair (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Totally Unfair....NOT! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
It's called a penalty (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Yes. In many places (including the USA), a monopoly has extra rules it must follow to avoid abusing it's position.
Parent
Re:Extortion? (Score:3, Insightful)
"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)
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.
Parent
Stop being over-simplistic (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Stop being over-simplistic (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be hard pressed to believe that bundling Win
Re:Extortion? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Extortion? (Score:3, Interesting)
What's next? Fining them for including Paint, Mine Sweeper, NotePad, and the Calculator?
- Jasen.
Re:Extortion? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's just another write off (Score:2)