DoJ Finds Microsoft Antitrust Compliance 'On Track'

eldavojohn writes "Despite demand for more oversight from the states, the Department of Justice has found that Microsoft's antitrust compliance plan is right on track. These specific investigations centered around Vista's compliance with Google's concerns surrounding search tools for the desktop. From the article: 'Preliminary testing shows the new version, which will let Vista users set a competing search program as their default and see it in the Windows Start menu, works as expected. The changes will be available in Service Pack 1, a package of upgrades and fixes expected in the first quarter of 2008, the department said. The department also said in its report that it is looking into differences between original technical documentation and rewritten versions from Microsoft, and that it is testing fixes Microsoft made to some software.'"

Agriculture

[westlake]

I would be (literally!) very happy to be proven wrong. Do you have an example of another productive, exporting industry in the US?

Agriculture.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 31, 2007 - Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns today announced a record $79 billion forecast in FY 2007 agricultural exports. For fiscal year 2008, USDA forecasts exports to reach $83.5 billion with growth and new sales across all major agricultural product groups. U.S. Agricultural Exports Expected To Reach Record Levels [usda.gov]

Re:Antitrust

[$pace6host]

I thought the problem was that Microsoft was already judged to be a monopoly, and to have abused their monopoly. See, if Microsoft has a monopoly on the O/S, and they use that O/S monopoly to harm competitors in other markets (office software, search software, media players, etc.) then the government is supposed to step in and protect competition to protect the consumers. How do they abuse their monopoly? Well, I assume you will agree that their O/S is essentially the only O/S shipped by the vast majority of vendors. The first link in Google for "O/S marketshare" would indicate that various flavors of Windows have over 90%. Examples?

• A company comes along and decides to sell browsers, great! Then Microsoft makes their own browser, and "bundles" it with the O/S (or makes it "an integral part" of the O/S). No one buys the competitor, because they get one "free" with the O/S; additionally, any non-standard "features" of Microsoft's browser become the instant standard. Competition harmed.
• Someone decides to make search software, great! Microsoft makes their own, and bundles it with the O/S. No one downloads or uses the competitor, because they get one "free" with the O/S. Competition harmed.
• Someone makes a good media player, great! Microsoft decides to "bundle" one with the O/S - no one buys the competitor and no one makes files in the competitor's format, because consumers get one "free" with the O/S. Why make content in a format no one will ever use? Competition harmed.

Do you see how having a monopoly on the O/S can allow you to throw around an instant 90% marketshare? Name any application. Now, imagine what happens to vendors of that type of application when Microsoft "bundles" an app of that type with the O/S. Remember, no one has the choice to buy the O/S without the bundling. It's not like Microsoft is saying "Hey, we make a great widget, too, buy ours!" They're saying "hidden in the cost of the O/S you're going to get anyway will be a widget -- why buy our competitors?" And these things AREN'T integral to the O/S. They're things that can be, should be, and originally were separate products. Microsoft didn't invent the browser, the media player, or the search feature. The O/S existed without all of them before. Now, did they do this because everyone was having problems finding these applications before Microsoft nobly put their own versions in a bundle with the O/S? Or, was it that Microsoft wanted to force the adoption of their product and extend their monopoly into other markets?

Additionally, suppose Microsoft also publishes public APIs for their O/S, to allow vendors to sell products that run on it, but they intentionally leave out critical information that would allow those vendors to compete with Microsoft's own offerings.

These types of practices trample competitors, who may have superior products that no one will ever discover because a monopoly has been abused.

Here's a analogy that is probably flawed, but which I hope illustrates the problem. Imagine that 90% of all TVs are made by MegaTV. An engineer sitting around at home gets a great idea - we can sell movies on little plastic disks that people can watch on their TVs! He starts a company (DiskCo) that sells movie disk players you can hook up to your MegaTV. A few other companies think this is a great opportunity, and they get into the disk player market, playing movies in the DiskCo format. Seeing this, MegaTV makes their own disk player and bundles it into every new TV sold, so 90% of all TVs sold now have a MegaTV disk player in them. Sure, all the new TVs are slightly more expensive, but the player is "free!" And, the MegaTV player has a quirk in it, it handles something slightly different. Movie studios have to choose -- do they put out content that works on DiskCo's player? Or on the one that 90% of all new TV owners will have? Hmmm... DiskCo and the other small vendors go out of business, no one wants their players and their players don't handle the "non standard" (but most prevalent) content "prope

Re:Antitrust

[kimvette]

"Give me a big enough lever and I can move the earth." Owning the OS is a pretty big lever. If you've been paying attention the last 10 years you've seen MS using their monopoly to destroy, stifle, and expand.

In addition to that, since the antitrust procedings started, the list price for Windows has quadrupled. THAT is clearly illegal as it is abusing their monopoly status to force price increases. Microsoft is a coercive monopoly [wikipedia.org] and the DoJ and FTC are doing NOTHING about it.

Microsoft has a coercive monopoly because they are abusing their position to increase prices, and have been taking technical measures dating all the way back to Windows 3.x to break interoperability with third-party products. In addition, they push third parties in other industry segments out of business by bundling half-baked solutions with the OS (MSIE 1.x and 2.x, anyone?) in effort to take over their other markets where they see others' enjoying even a mediocum of success. Lastly, they held their prices artificially low (especially on MSDN, it has been alleged by some that Microsoft set up shell companies to get developers hooked on MSDN and shut them down when popularity hit critical mass [asp.net] at which point the new equivalent of an MSDN Universal subscription (the highest end non-volume-licensed subscription) which once was obtainable for $800 to $1200 is not unobtainable for less than $9,000, pushing out the ability of independent newcomers from entering the market. You may claim that $9,000 is not much for a company, but in reality for software it's insane, especially when you consider that many of today's megacorps were started in the '70s, '80s, and '90s by one or two people hacking some code on a new interesting program idea. $9,000 to a developer hacking a prototype on his or her own time at home -- it is a LOT of money.

Re:Joke

[westlake]

Personally, I think the whole anti-trust thing has been a joke. It has had no teeth and no real effect.

Anti-trust sentiment in the states has always been short-lived.

It was a fairly common thing for an oil lamp or a kitchen stove to blow up in your face. Petroleum at retail prices was expensive. Standard Oil changed all that.

When the cartel was broken, customers didn't flee to the small independents as the reformers expected, they stuck with Rockefeller's regional operating companies - and the old man prospered.