DoJ Finds Microsoft Antitrust Compliance 'On Track' 110
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.'"
Of course it does... (Score:5, Interesting)
Quote from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/arti
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, no. And it isn't hard to see why this is so: What does the US have left, in the area of actual productive industry? Sure, there are successful investment firms, etc., but most actual manufacturing has long been lost to other nations. There are basically two fields that are actually producing goods, Big Content (symbolized by the RIAA/MPAA) and software, and by software I mean basically Microsoft.
The US government isn't just corrupt and pandering to these
Re: (Score:1)
Where did you get this myth from? Sounds like one of those Microsoft advocacy websites paid for by Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Agriculture (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Dutch export of agriculture in 2006 was 50 billion euros. Import was close to 31 billion euros. So even if that number of yours is the difference (19 billion euros here) then you should still consider that the Netherlands are a tiny country compared to the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
US agriculture is also supporting a domestic population of 300 million.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
The Netherlands are one of the most densily populated countries in the world. Still we manage to feed our small amount of 16 million people with the area left (and import) and have good export (probably because the agricultural goods we're exporting are of high value, compared to what we import; about EUR 7 billion is for flower export).
Anyway, the deficiency issue stated in another reply to the parent illustrates this parent's po
Re:Agriculture (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait a second, that's wrong! Our trade deficit is roughly $60 billion per month. In the face of that, $79 billion is a drop in the bucket. We're hemorrhaging money, jobs, and manufacturing capacity and if we don't end it and encourage domestic manufacturing, we'll be totally fucked soon, ESPECIALLY if WWIII breaks out (that's where we're heading with our current foreign policies) and need to manufacture artillery and vehicles on short order.
Check this out for monthly trade deficit tallies: http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/ticker_home.
For a US trade deficit graph underscoring the seriousness of the matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_surplus#United
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
During WWII it was possible only because the US was capable of being entirely self-sufficient. Modern stealth technology require exotic minerals which can only be mined in two places in the world; one in a "protected" area in one of the US's deserts (it's a wildlife preservation and cannot be mined) and in china. Unfortunately on
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hate: There are countries that claim that the only problem with the Holocaust was that it ended too early. Iran refers to us as the Great Satan.
Death: China kills more of its own every year than we do.
Weapons: Ok, you got me. I approve though, as having the best guns has a chilling effect on other nations going to war.
Fear: China. Venezuela. Israel.
Corruption: Bangladesh.
Patents: Yep, that's probably us. Japan has a pretty messed up patent system too, though.
Pharmaceuticals: I don't s
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing has serious competition, despite dominating its field. Intel has some competition, not too much, but it is possible to envision a near future wher
Re: (Score:2)
Historically, education has been one of the US's major "export industries".
There is a certain amount of irony here, since the US population as a whole has a rather deep antipathy towards education and educated people. It's easy to see this in American politics, where a college degree is a handicap that politicians tend to downplay. The recent fun over the video clip of a Miss Teen USA contestant explaining why Americans can't find th [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
nope. still can't grasp anything past "don't have maps"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It fails top take into account that if you need to pay others for something, you need to earn the money from them and not earn it from yourself. Taking money from your left pocket and putting it in the right pocet does not make you richer.
And you won't get rich by getting the commission on lending your money to people who are not economically viable, but have falsified the paperwork.
Re: (Score:2)
You can also wash your neighbour's dishes, and ask him money for that.
That's also what a service-based economy is about: providing services not only for your own people, but also for your neighbours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course not: Bush and his buddies let M$ off the hook in 2001 and are still big friends with them. Was that supposed to have changed? No. If anything substantial is going to be done about the M$ monopoly, it'll have to wait until after the next administration takes over in 2009. The only danger is if M$ succeeds in once again stalling the judicial process long enough to last until the next Republican administration. But, since they've already been convicted of mo
Which DOJ? (Score:2, Insightful)
The Bush administration and Microsoft Corporation are both rotten.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For some values of On Track? (Score:3, Insightful)
Antitrust (Score:4, Interesting)
I never quite understood the rationale behind, for example, trying to force Windows Media Player out of the Windows XP bundle. Really, Microsoft sells an OS and its customers want a somewhat functional system at that. These days, a PC isn't really complete until it can play some digital media and thus MS includes a media player with its OS.
I don't use windows unless I really have to. I don't use Windows media player unless I happen to find myself on a deserted island in the body of an evil zombie pirate with two matching pink socks.
I also don't encourage others to use Windows Media Player or Internet Explorer or any of the other crud that MS ships with their (Others, that is) new computers.
Still, isn't this a bit out of line? Why on earth should they not be allowed to supply a search function in their own OS (And as far as I understand, they still claim that Windows => IE?)
Why is anyone at all listening to the people who complain about Opera/VLC/whatever not getting a fair chance on the windows market?
I say "no" to Microsoft products, but I don't think we should force anyone to come to the same conclusion like this.
Re:Antitrust (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to that, since the antitrust procedings started, the list price for Windows has quadrupled.
You are lying.
Windows 95: $209
Windows 98: $209
Windows XP Home: $199
Windows Vista Home Basic: $199
Windows Vista Home Premium: $239
Taking into account *only* inflation (not even additional features and functional improvements) Windows has gotten _cheaper_ over the last decade or so. Even if you looked at Vista Ultimate, which retails for $400, it's only about 50% higher in adjusted price to Windows
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
What about Net Neutrality? We demand that local cable monopolies not give preferred treatment to their own products. This is exactly like Microsoft giving preferred treatment to its own search engine, media player, web browser, etc.
What about calls for open access in the cell phone airwaves? We want those who control the airwaves to let consumers choose to use whatever phone they want. Again, this is just like r
Re: (Score:1)
Again, this is just like requiring Microsoft to let users plug in whatever browser they want.
Who is stopping Me or You from running Windows and using an alternative browser?
You are right, of course, but I still think it is a bit childish to complain about the search engine used by default (Or the Media player or the Browser or mspaint.exe). Where do we draw the line between Microsoft giving you (the consumer, that is) something you ask for and the same Microsoft attempting to force you into using something?
Perhaps I just see it a bit differently since my country isn't quite as infested with mo
Re: (Score:2)
Suddenly, I decide that I want to make tires, too. Who could begrudge me from bundling my cars with my tires? Certainly, if the customers want to use Michelin or Firestone tires, they could replace the bundled tires when they buy the car. I'll even be a nice guy and do an even trade for the tires, b
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Additionally while you may make the other tires your default the car will continue to use the Microsoft tires for some functions.
In that scenario it is more costly to opt for anything other than MS tires. Both for the consumer and the dealer.
As well by ensuring all microsoft cars have microsoft tires stores that sell plug kits will stock primarily those de
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is: you cannot install a fresh Windows installation without put Media Player, IE, or the MS Search Engine. Or worse, you cannot remove them..
Heh, why didn't I think of that?
This makes the "grip" of their products somewhat tighter, but still I don't se a good reason to force a change unless they decide that you are no longer allowed to use a different browser\media player\search.
Maybe, as someone else pointed out, it's all more complicated than this (Economics and monopolies etc.), but I know I would be pissed if I wasn't allowed to make my own software depend on different parts of itself or some other piece of software that I wrote.
Sure, a
Re: (Score:2)
However, this wasn't even the beginning. Microsoft's bad behavior predates that, with the use of market muscle to make sure that PC manufacturers put Windows on their machines, or suffer from higher OEM costs. Prior to that was deliberate sabotage of competitor software (like Dr. DOS).
It isn't simply Wind
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think if you looked at past US antitrust actions, you won't find much evidence of the level of ongoing scrutiny of monopolies that you
Re: (Score:1)
Why should a car company not be allowed to force you to
only use certain tires (theirs) on their cars?
Well, the car analogy is easily shot down. My car does not belong to the Chrysler Corporation, it belongs to me. But on the other hand, my car included a radio when I bought it. I decided I wanted a better radio with more features, so I went out and bought one. Similarly, my computer runs Windows and included a browser when I bought it. I decided I wanted a better browser with more features, so I went out and downloaded one. I haven't touched IE in at least 2 years. That's hardly being "forced" to use it.
Re:Antitrust (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the OP is confusing a monopoly, something that is totally legal and is actually something that true open markets lead to, with antitrust (abuse of that monopoly) which is something that is illegal. To add to the confusion, there are several forms of monopoly that are protected in law (copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret). It is little wonder that such a complex concept is beyond the modern citizen especially since the very things that are being challenged are also protected by those laws.
Microsoft has been convicted of abuse of its monopoly position. The settlement would have worked somewhat had not only the DOJ but the court's oversight body been doing their job. The fact that Vista was allowed to be released without the "features" they are just now putting into SP1 is proof that there is no oversight of the settlement. The rigging of votes in standards bodies and lack of released documentation for their APIs and document formats is another.
Many here are speculating that the EU will be tougher, and that may be the case, but in the end it will have no effect on Microsoft's abuse of monopoly anywhere else outside of Europe. Microsoft will ship a neutered version of their product to Europe and point fingers at the EU saying, "Blame them for the lack of features (or a broken OS more likely since media DRM is so tied into Vista) that others around the globe have. Can't play that DVD you just bought? Blame the EU Commission not us!"
Microsoft is walking a fine line (often crossing it with impunity it seems) between functionality and abuse of monopoly. Any new technology out of Redmond becomes suspect since they always seem to be pushing that technology onto vendors via their OS dominance. I don't think Microsoft will ever get out from under the cloud they have cast over themselves of being "evil". I also don't see things changing no matter who gains the White House hot seat simply because of the political clout such a large employer has.
The other thing that is in relation to what I just said is Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't in many cases especially where security is concerned. Companies like Symantic and McAffee and the like have built a large business on the insecurities inherent in the Microsoft platform. When Microsoft announced Windows Defender these companies screamed "antitrust!" The same is happening for any features Microsoft adds be it media, search indexing, security, etc. These are things that Microsoft customers are screaming for but any attempt by Microsoft to address them gets a call for antitrust because they will always step on some provider's toes no matter what they do. Consider this, if Microsoft were to include into their OS all the things that a Linux distro does, the calls for antitrust would be so great you could hear it on Pluto without the need for a radio.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The other thing that is in relation to what I just said is Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't in many cases especially where security is concerned. Companies like Symantic and McAffee and the like have built a large business on the insecurities inherent in the Microsoft platform. When Microsoft announced Windows Defender these companies screamed "antitrust!" The same is happening for any features Microsoft adds be it media, search indexing, security, etc. These are things that Microsoft customers are screaming for but any attempt by Microsoft to address them gets a call for antitrust because they will always step on some provider's toes no matter what they do. Consider this, if Microsoft were to include into their OS all the things that a Linux distro does, the calls for antitrust would be so great you could hear it on Pluto without the need for a radio.
Would you be on the MS payroll I could understand you.
But for non-MS people your writing is incomprehensible.
The big difference between MS and Linux distro's including such utilities is that MS is forcing competing commercial offerings out of the market by leveraging it's OS.
The one about Windows Defender is quite transparent, first they write software (OS and applications) that is suseptible to abuse and expect others to build a line of defence. By the time the defensive stuff starts making money off
Re: (Score:2)
I am not now, nor have I ever been on any software company's payroll. If I had to write software for a living, I'd starve. I don't even own a copy (legal or otherwise) of any version of Windows. My preferred OS is Gentoo Linux since 2000. That aside...
Re: (Score:2)
That is an outrageous lie. Nowhere does Google say that it should be the only search engine, but it does demand that a convicted monopolist be forced to make sure that it is not furthering its monopoly by excluding other search engines. As search engines have essentially become the prime deliverer of information in the last decade, Microsoft's exclusion of Google was very much in de
Re: (Score:2)
The big difference between MS and Linux distro's including such utilities is that MS is forcing competing commercial offerings out of the market by leveraging it's OS.
Nothing in Windows stops me using alternative software for browsing, search, etc.
The one about Windows Defender is quite transparent, first they write software (OS and applications) that is suseptible to abuse and expect others to build a line of defence.
Windows Defender (and similar products from Symantec, etc) do next to nothing to pr
Re: (Score:2)
that however is not the main difference between bundling in a linux distribution and bundling in windows. Linux is not made by one company but by hundreds of thousands of amateur and professional developers worldwide. commercial software for watching videos or browsing the web does not really exist for linux, so let's take a different example. what would happen if a bunch
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't exactly true is it? There are three factors that can be perceived as force. First, the customers and partners that call and demand those features. That isn't really as compelling as it needs to be but it still exists. Second, competition in the market, especially in emerging markets. This is much more of a reason than customer demand. The lure of money in a market
Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has been doing and continues to do exactly what monopolies are not supposed to be allowed to do: use its market position and control to actively suppress competition and innovation. The Justice Department is 1) inept, 2) blind, and/or 3) 0wned.
Re: (Score:2)
Most don't care to be bothered with any of the details of technology.
The information superhighway is just another road, to be ignored unless the bridge goes out from under them.
Many would choose OOXML over ODF because the longer acronym is probably better, no?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The browser has not become the operating system, Java is primarily used to create applications for mobile phones, there are multiple free open source browsers, and multiple bundled or for-pay drop-in browsers.
You're right. I don't care to be bothered with the details of the technology. I don't care that Windows bundles the TCP/IP stack, compressible files, zip-format archiving,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
At this point, yes it is. But that's because the people that are supposed to be overseeing the whole thing are about the biggest pro-business group you can find. If we had an administration that actually cared about anything more than money, then it wouldn't be such a joke. And for all you Ron Paul fans out there, keep in mind that in his ideal world there's no such thing as antitrust. It's all about business, and anything and everything in t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't suppose you'd care to explain how the U.S. would go about enforcing domestic law in Sweden.
The "deal" with Novell to chill other distros. The bankrolling of SCO vs. Linux. The ever-popular "let's spew continous FUD about Linux rather than tout or own good points"
None of which are illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a matter of legality.
The whole point of monopoly regulation/oversight is to prevent them from doing things that stifle the free, competitive market... tactics that WOULD be LEGAL for non-monopolies are not necessary legal for monopolies. It depends on what the regulators dictate. Once a monopoly is declared, it is the job of the oversight body to examine the practices of the monopoly. What remedies they formulate *are* the law, for that monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy. The US government's law-enforcement agencies, such as the Dept of Justice, the FBI, etc., have a long history of cooperating with corresponding agencies in other countries. It's quite common for such agencies to assist each other in investigations, collecting evidence that can be used in another country's legal proceedings. I'd guess that the Swedish government has already contacted several American g
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's a joke [eweek.com] but it goes on too long to be funny.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 p
On track (Score:4, Funny)
A real anti-trust ruling... (Score:3, Insightful)
A real anti-trust ruling would be something along the following lines:
a)Microsoft are forced to offer the same price for OEM licenses to all retailers ( and disclose its magnitude ).
b)Retailers are forced to offer systems without an OEM license, should the customer ask for it, with the cost reduced in accordance with the price of the license ( which Microsoft must disclose )
c)Microsoft is banned from charging more for their retail version than the OEM license.
Now THAT would actually cause them to shit themselves.
Oh, and before somebody starts claiming this is unfair and Microsoft having the right to charge whatever and whatnot... NO! They lost that right because they abused their market position. We give them those rights with the intention to stimulate development that benefits society, if Microsoft abuses those rights in a way that is detrimental to the market, we are perfectly justified in taking them away again.
Re: (Score:1)
a) The price may depend on the number of licenses sold.
b) Any PC manufacturers can get the OEM license, without further conditions. This makes retailers free to offer dual boot Windows/Linux systems. It is something we currently don't see, would allow PC manufacturers to advertise the systems, getting Linux in the hands of more people. Theres days HDs are big and cheap.
c) The retail version may be up to $50 more expensive than the OEM licen
Re: (Score:1)
e) A user is free to run a legal copy of the OS in a virtual environment; and the manufacturer may take no measures to prevent that.
f) A single copy of the OS on a computer may both be used for direct boot, or for use in a virtual environment, and the manufacturer may not take any measures to prevent that.
Bert
Re: (Score:2)
a) The price may depend on the number of licenses sold.
No, that's price fixing. There is no reason why they should be able to charge less for volume with software. Overheads should be charged separately and be justifiable/controlled, otherwise it's a form of bundling.
b) Any PC manufacturers can get the OEM license, without further conditions. This makes retailers free to offer dual boot Windows/Linux systems. It is something we currently don't see,
Agreed, but I would put it in terms of saying all co
Re: (Score:2)
If Microsoft had to offer the same price to tiny reseller outfits who sell in small volume but sell expensive stuff (e.g. because they add lots of value by shipping special-purpose systems), then that price will need to be quite high; if you ship only 50 units per year but still have support needs, the cost of supporting you and keeping you informed about products etc. is quite high.
The high-volume box-shifters often operate on such low margins that they couldn't
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that your proposal is quite unfair.
Nonsense. The only reason why M$ can charge differently is because they are a monopoly and can price fix.
As I understand things the principle of the OEM license is that the OEM provides first-line support.
So they unbundle and charge for support separately.
In a true free market where there was competition and the first sale doctrine actually applied a vendor like M$ wouldn't be able to price fix because customers would on-sell cheaper copies of Windows
Re: (Score:2)
This is nothing more than a resurrection of the old price-fixing scheme - the "fair trade price" - intended to drive the volume purchaser - the discount retailer - out of the market.
Retailers are forced to offer systems without an OEM license, should the customer ask for it, with the cost reduced in accordance with the price of the license
In other words, retailers should be forced to offer a product that their mass market cus
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft are forced to offer the same price for OEM licenses to all retailers
This is nothing more than a resurrection of the old price-fixing scheme - the "fair trade price" - intended to drive the volume purchaser - the discount retailer - out of the market.
No, it's recognition of the fact that software and IP in general is an unusual product. Particularly when sold by a monopoly.
Retailers are forced to offer systems without an OEM license, should the customer ask for it, with the cost reduced in accordance with the price of the license
In other words, retailers should be forced to offer a product that their mass market customers abandoned twenty-five years - thirty years ago - because it appeals only to the technical hobbyist and the IT pro.
No matter that the "naked box" has its own marketing, inventory and support costs. No matter that the OEM Windows box usually ships with popular and profitable OEM installs like Microsoft Office.
Stop exaggerating, those overheads are minimal to non-existent. You mean they're bundling and hiding the true cost of the produc
Re: (Score:2)
What are the standards? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The main update page about this case, at the DoJ website [usdoj.gov] lists quite a few standards.
And isn't this interesting?
We know who to thank (Score:1, Offtopic)
You're doing a heck of a job, Roberto.
"on trek" ? (Score:1)
laughable and criable. (Score:1, Troll)
If you call this "on-track" then you're not worried about the pesky laws.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you call this "on-track" then you're not worried about the pesky laws.
Just like Safari with OS X and Konqueror in Gnome...?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
burn baby burn (Score:2)
So... (Score:1)
On track? (Score:1)
Cool Google Search in Vista! (Score:2)
Now users can accidentally install this crap and wonder why their Vista search abilities don't work right or start crashing the system.
How well will Google search do with audio, image/ocr searches that are necessary for products like OneNote, or developers that write their own plug-ins to Vista's search that are standard APIs, will this now also fail on Vista if Google is installed?
I wonder how Google's search handles remote network shares and other features of the Vista search s