Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government The Courts United States News Politics

Seven States Extend Microsoft Antitrust Judgment 200

Posted by Zonk from the in-for-the-long-haul dept.
Technical Writing Geek writes "A number of states have moved to extend antitrust judgments against Microsoft until the year 2012. California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia are all contributing to the decision, and have released a report on the factors that lead to the extension. 'The report laments the state of OEM web browser bundling, saying that no major OEM currently distributes a browser other than Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE). This is important due to the rise of new middleware platforms (such as Adobe's AIR and Microsoft's own Silverlight) that can create rich, OS-independent, web-based applications.' The report is slightly self-contradictory, but raises some valid points."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Seven States Extend Microsoft Antitrust Judgment More

Seven States Extend Microsoft Antitrust Judgment

Comments Filter:

  • they're no stranger to that idea (Score:4, Funny)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Thursday October 18, 2007 @03:58PM (#21030479) Homepage
    A number of states have moved to extend antitrust judgments against Microsoft

    Ah yes, the old "embrace and extend" has come full circle.

  • Just what I want - (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TJ_Phazerhacki ( 520002 ) on Thursday October 18, 2007 @03:58PM (#21030487) Journal
    A million different browsers with no standards!And before you say it - we need standards before we get browsers, not browsers that generate standards.

    For the record, between IE, Firefox, and Everything Else, just because OEM's ship the default browser doesn't mean that there isn't anything else available - it means more often that people are far too lazy to look.

    • "we need standards before we get browsers, not browsers that generate standards."

      No probs, check it out: HTML 4.01 Specification [w3.org] :)
      • the HTML isnt really a problem. it's mostly CSS and occasionally javascript and DOM.

        but one that thing would really help is if they made a standard for the window object model and designMode. designMode in particular is one big glorious pile of chaos.
    • I'm pretty sure Microsoft purposely keeps IE from following the standards so more websites are developed for only IE. Doing this makes most of the web require Windows for correct viewing of it.

  • District of Columbia (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Apple Acolyte ( 517892 ) on Thursday October 18, 2007 @03:59PM (#21030507)
    DC = !a state

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by calebt3 ( 1098475 )
      That's not off-topic! The headline says seven states. I count six states and D.C.
      • Maybe the moderators are as educated as the submitter. Or worse yet, maybe they are both in the same.
  • Hmm, it's amazing what they'll make a state these days.
    • I think they essentially declared themselves a state when Colbert featured their Shadow Congresswoman on Better Know a District

  • What to do... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by calebt3 ( 1098475 ) on Thursday October 18, 2007 @04:02PM (#21030555)
    From the article:

    This last bit gets into the argument over Microsoft's current desktop monopoly and what, if anything, is to be done about it.
    Simple. Take the advice of that one EU thinktank and force OEM un-bundling.

  • Ow! My wrist! Why, I oughta... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by edraven ( 45764 ) on Thursday October 18, 2007 @04:02PM (#21030559)
    So the totally ineffectual measures that've been taken to punish Microsoft for misusing its illegal monopoly to eliminate or marginalize its competition are going to be ineffectual for a longer period of time? That'll show 'em.

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You cannot punish a corporation the same way you punish an individual, because they don't care about the same things. There's only one thing a corporation values, so there's only one thing you can take away from one: market share. Pass a measure forcing Microsoft and its subsidiaries to halve their advertising budget for, say, five years.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AuMatar ( 183847 )
      Sure you can- get rid of the corporate veil. For every $100,000 a company is fined, the CEO and board of directors must stay 1 month in jail, with no possibility of parole. Watch corporations follow the law instantly.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by edraven ( 45764 )
        As I understand it, the concept of incorporation was created to overcome the chilling effect on commerce of the individual's natural reluctance to take on personal responsibility for a whole company. Basically what you're saying is take that protection away. You might have a hard time finding CEOs and directors, and they'd probably expect higher pay than they already receive.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by AuMatar ( 183847 )
          The reason corporations don't care about laws is that there are no consequences for the people running it. Bring back the consequences and you'll bring back respect for the law. The idea was never to give the people running corporations complete immunity- it was to give investors limited immunity, so people who weren't running the show could invest in minority positions and not take on huge legal risks. In other words, to protect the small-medium investors, not to protect the CEOs. The major owners and

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by edraven ( 45764 )
            I think the essence of what we're digging at here is the duality of corporations. On the one hand they are, in a sense, a separate entity. This is how the law seems to treat them today. On the other hand, they are a collective entity, made up of the people responsible for making decisions pertaining to the use of their resources.

            Your explanation of the origin of incorporation is perfectly correct, according to my understanding. But for one reason or another the law (in America, at least) has over time exten
          • This is absolute BS. Any CEO can be criminally punished for their actions of running a company. The problem you have is when a lower level employee does something wrong and the CEO isn't punished along with them. But that only goes with our supposed spirit of justice where your innocent until proven guilty and no guilt by association.

            You see, When Employee X, whether a lower level supervisor, a member of the corperate ladder or a peon pushing parts together does something illegal, you don't remember it as J

      • Sure you can- get rid of the corporate veil. For every $100,000 a company is fined, the CEO and board of directors must stay 1 month in jail, with no possibility of parole. Watch corporations follow the law instantly.

        Even better, void the Corporate Charter. Corporate charters were originally granted only if the corporation served the public good. However as corporations gained power they were able to have the public good [bilkent.edu.tr] requirements removed.

        Falcon

      • Or, imprison the corporation itself. If I break the law, they lock me up, and I cannot do business with the rest of society. Do the same to the corporations. Send the sheriff out to lock the company doors, and prevent them from doing business for 6 months, a year, or whatever sentence they would give me.

        Yes, it would be devistating to the corporation, just as devistating as it would be to me if I were locked up for a year.
        Yes, those that work for the corporation would be hurt, just like the people wh

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by edraven ( 45764 )
          Corporations live off their ability to do business. This would be more like locking you up for 6 months without food.
          • That is simply incorrect. Corporations live off the recognition of the government. If the government revokes their charter, then they are dead. If the government recognizes them as a Corporation, then it lives on. Cutting off of it's revenue could simply make it destitute. The same as cutting off the ability of a real person to make money for six months could make them destitute. So, that is no excuse for the government to give one entity preferential treatment under the law over another. Hell, many

    • Pass a measure forcing Microsoft and its subsidiaries to halve their advertising budget for, say, five years.

      Kind of like child support, couldn't the law force MS to give half it's advertising budget anyone making a competitive product? ...or all of it (based on the average budget for the past 'n' years) for a certain period of time?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by edraven ( 45764 )
        Wasn't the tobacco industry fined and the fines used to produce anti-smoking advertising campaigns? Seems like there's a precedent.
    • Better yet, prevent retailers from bundling operating systems with new computers. At the very least, you'll see M$ lower their prices as a result.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by edraven ( 45764 )
        That's true, a lot of MicroSoft's monopoly power comes from their influence over OEMs and retailers. Another idea I've had in the past (that you've just reminded me of) was to increase the cost for other corporations to do business with a corporation that had been found guilty of illegal practices. If a company has to pay an extra tax in order to use or install MicroSoft products, they're encouraged to start looking at options. And as someone else has pointed out, that tax money could be earmarked for adver

      • Better yet, prevent retailers from bundling operating systems with new computers

        A BIG problem with this is that most people when they buy a new computer they just want to plug it in when they get home and have it work out of the box. Maybe it would help if a new computer came with different OSes came on disk. A Windows disk, maybe two or three different versions, and disks for different versions of Linux and BSD. However I seriously doubt most people ever want to install an OS unless they call tech s

        • A BIG problem with this is that most people when they buy a new computer they just want to plug it in when they get home and have it work out of the box. ...

          Nonsense! What about all those Windows recovery CDs? You just insert it into the drive, boot with it and soon the system is returned to exactly the same state as when you got it from the store. One of Microsoft's original arguments against distributing Windows this way was that it would make piracy easier, but that defense has become much more diffi

    • I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You cannot punish a corporation the same way you punish an individual, because they don't care about the same things.

      I agree.

      There's only one thing a corporation values, so there's only one thing you can take away from one: market share.

      I disagree. The company cares about money and the people directing the company care about money, power, and their own well being.

      Pass a measure forcing Microsoft and its subsidiaries to halve their advertising budget for, say, five years.

      The brilliance of capitalism within a free market is that it relies upon greed and self interest to bring benefit to society. As companies compete with one another to give customers what they want, they are rewarded based upon how well customers believe they have succeeded in that.

      Because of MS's monopoly, that is no longer the case and the only way I think things

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MrKaos ( 858439 )

        Break MS up into at least two companies

        That might actually be doing M$ a favour if this guy's allegations [billparish.com] are true. What about a settlement that means something to competition and getting M$ to declare patent indemnity for all Linux Vendors or force them to publish the patents in question?

        Seems to me the competition only needs a little leeway to be able to move forward and that browser wars don't mean much anymore.

        • What about a settlement that means something to competition and getting M$ to declare patent indemnity for all Linux Vendors or force them to publish the patents in question?

          I'm not opposed to software patent reform, but I don't see it as related strongly to monopoly abuse.

          Seems to me the competition only needs a little leeway to be able to move forward and that browser wars don't mean much anymore.

          On the contrary, I think the browser tie-in is one of MS's biggest competition blockers. The prohibitive cost of moving away from technologies and services tied to IE is a large factor in preventing both companies and individuals from moving away from Windows and to other platforms. MS's refusal to support modern Web standards have prevented the Web from being a real platform for applications that woul

  • Hedging bets (Score:5, Interesting)

    by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Thursday October 18, 2007 @04:06PM (#21030623) Homepage Journal
    The states' report seems to imply that Microsoft will try to find a way to tie Silverlight to IE in the future, and leverage the 80 percent market share of IE on the desktop to try and edge out competitors like Adobe AIR. In our view, it's more likely that Microsoft has learned to accept the reality of a web application future and simply wants to make sure that it is the driving force behind its development.

    +1 Insightful

    Microsoft is hedging their bets. If their cash cows are really threatened in the near future they need a backup plan. I think they're not sure how they would profit, be it software-as-a-service or infrastructure or development tools. But they know they need to cover as many angles as possible to survive long term.

  • Boy... (Score:4, Funny)

    by JK_the_Slacker ( 1175625 ) on Thursday October 18, 2007 @04:08PM (#21030653) Homepage
    What with this and the releases of Gutsy Gibbon and Leopard, this is turning out to be a bad month for furniture.
    • I think Ballmer went through most chairs after Michael Dell's announcement.
    • What with this and the releases of Gutsy Gibbon and Leopard, this is turning out to be a bad month for furniture.

      for the hammering Microsoft takes on Slashdot, we all know what Microsoft's next quarterly financial report is going to look like. we all know why "Apple' is no longer "Apple Computer." Apple sells a half dozen or so configurations of the Mac that either meet your needs or they don't. that is a profitable strategy, but it is not a strategy that dramatically increases your market share.

  • Its not really a good idea to impose restrictions on a company for "what they MIGHT do".

    Ie they "might be able to" leverage the next version of Windows to push people toward silverlight. Kinda dangerous ground.

    • Its not really a good idea to impose restrictions on a company for "what they MIGHT do".

      Those who have been found to have committed wrongdoing in the past are often subject to future restrictions based on what they might do; this relates to the concept of incapacitation [wikipedia.org] as a tool in a justice system.

      I don't see why companies should be less subject to this than individuals.

  • The irony (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Uncle_Meataxe ( 702474 )
    Perhaps it's only a little ironic that some states keep fighting the Microsoft Monopoly yet force their own (state) employees to use Microsoft products. This is true of California (and probably most states). How much do they really care to bust the monopoly if they can't even wean themselves from the convicted monopolist?
    • Wouldn't you say you answered your own question? Once a government body becomes so ingrained into a product that they cannot find an alternative, something must be done.

    • Perhaps it's only a little ironic that some states keep fighting the Microsoft Monopoly yet force their own (state) employees to use Microsoft products. This is true of California (and probably most states). How much do they really care to bust the monopoly if they can't even wean themselves from the convicted monopolist?

      How is this "irony"? Its really very simple, the states who don't see a viable choice for themselves besides the existing monopoly would be most likely, not least, to see the monopoly as ha

  • No OEMs that bundle something other than IE? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nsayer ( 86181 ) * <`moc.ufk' `ta' `reyasn'> on Thursday October 18, 2007 @05:16PM (#21031825) Homepage
    I can think of at least one OEM [apple.com] that bundles a browser other than Internet Explorer.
    • Yes, Mac OS X comes with Safari, various Linux distros come with Konqueror or Firefox.

      There is a difference. They can all be completely uninstalled except for IE.

      • There is a difference. They can all be completely uninstalled except for IE.

        That is not an important difference at all. The reason bundling Safari with OS X or Firefox with RedHat is not an issue is because Neither OS X nor Linux wields monopoly influence in a market. If Apple is ruled to have monopoly influence in the portable music player market, it will be just as illegal for them to bundle iTunes with every iPod sold, regardless of how easy it is to uninstall.

        I just don't understand why it is so hard for people to understand what a monopoly is, why bundling and tying are an

  • Since when does Ubuntu and OSX have IE installed? Dell and Apple are both OEM's and they both use alternative OS'es which has alternative browsers. Just because it's not running windows doesn't mean it's not competing with IE.

    Regardless, There's a definite rising trend of market share in alternative browsers, especially FireFox. Most likely the OEM's are not including Firefox (as well as other free software, such as Openoffice) because the Mozilla Foundation isn't willing to pay the OEM's (unlike Google, AO

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close