Doing the Math in the Microsoft Anti-Trust Cases 407
coupland writes "Bob Cringely has posted this week's column and has made some interesting comments. He says that regardless of what happens in the EU, DOJ, and class-action proceedings, Microsoft can't lose. Why? Because they make more money by paying lip-service to the law and accepting the occasional fine than by complying. He even does some simple math to prove his point. Fascinating stuff."
"Oh, I'll just pay the fine..." (Score:5, Interesting)
For everyone else's benefit (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"Oh, I'll just pay the fine..." (Score:4, Insightful)
But you are correct, he even got a large number of "warnings" while in office. Once he got elected to the house he should have gotten a driver to drive him around (espically if the health concerns he used in his defense were vaild).
Oh, and to stay on topic. Yes, I do believe that one day MicroSofts flouting of anti-trust laws will actually get them in trouble. But, it took Janklow almost 30 years to get in trouble driving, so it might be a while.
Re:"Oh, I'll just pay the fine..." (Score:4, Interesting)
True, my comment wasn't especially relevant, except in the sense of it being an example of a powerful person who broke the law repeatedly and was content to shrug it off and "simply pay the fine."
It's especially egregious in the case of politicians, because they routinely exempt themselves from justice.
It's outrageous that a person ran through a stop signal, and killed someone. It's more outrageous that they were a persistent violator of traffic laws. It's even more outrageous that this was someone who makes laws and is sworn to uphold them.
Re:"Oh, I'll just pay the fine..." (Score:2)
Now local news
Re:"Oh, I'll just pay the fine..." (Score:2)
I would have expected an EU fine of x Euros per day until compliance is achieved. You simply can not put years of work into a one time payment.
Re:"Oh, I'll just pay the fine..." (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Oh, I'll just pay the fine..." (Score:2, Interesting)
And if a truck or something had hit and killed Janklow when Janklow was driving recklessly, you can bet that his family would have the driver declared a terrorist and dragged off to Guantamo Bay.
Re:"Oh, I'll just pay the fine..." (Score:3, Interesting)
On that same note, Microsoft needs to have an appropriate punishment as well for their continued and blatent disregard for the laws
Or go the other direction (Score:3, Interesting)
How do you put a corporation in jail for 90 days?
How do you give a corporation the death penalty?
Once upon a time, the king could revoke your corporate charter, and your company went away. That's the closest thing to a 'death penalty' for corporations that I've ever encountered, but even modern trust busting practices don't go that far (Ma Bell was dismembered, but not actually destroyed).
Similarly, the punishment for some crimes allows for any
Corp Death Penalty (Score:3, Interesting)
1. seize all of its assets and auction it ASAP.
2. put all managers, middle-management and up in jail.
3. declare all of its rights in contracts invalid.
4. watch.
Re:Or go the other direction (Score:3, Interesting)
How do you put a corporation in jail for 90 days?
You freeze the companies assets for the 90 days, not allowing them to make any sort of financial transaction, while allowing stock market trading to commence as normal. The company is not allowed to make any sort of income during this time, all its products are removed from shelves for this duration, and the company is only allowed to work toward a resolution imposed by the court at the beginning of the "jail" period. In this case, MS would only be allo
Re:"Oh, I'll just pay the fine..." (Score:3, Funny)
Cheech: "man, I know there's something I was supposed to be doing today... what *was* it?"
Chong: "I dunno man, pass the bong."
Cheech: "Ah fuck it - if it was important I'd remember... man, I'm feeling hungry - you up for pizza?"
And so yet another chance for the stoner revolution dies
Re:"Oh, I'll just pay the fine..." (Score:3, Insightful)
-
He kept on "paying the fine" until his car met a motorcyle and the person driving the latter was killed.
An apt analogy considering how many small companies Microsoft has killed over the years through its practices (both legal and illegal ones).Re:"Oh, I'll just pay the fine..." (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Oh, I'll just pay the fine..." (Score:3, Informative)
Postponing trials and appealing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Judges should act quicker and allow for much less delay is anti-trust cases, because time plays against the ones they're trying to defend.
Re:Postponing trials and appealing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Innocent until proven guilty, remember? There's no reason that someone accused of anti-trust violations should have less of an opportunity to defend themselves than anyone else.
Having said that, I agree that the length of time most (not just anti-trust) trials take is riduculous, especially when you count the years of appeals. The obvious solution would be to create some special court to hear the appeals in such cases (rather than having them go through several levels of appeals), but that would require messy changes to the judicial system.
Re:Postponing trials and appealing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Postponing trials and appealing... (Score:4, Insightful)
And oh yeah, they should be in jail until their cases are decided, just like defendants in a murder trial. Let's see how much they try to delay things then.
There's a certain amount of precedent. Martha Stewart is almost certainly going to prison, and Dennis Kozlowski will probably be in the same boat once the trial finally happens right. ('Course, if you're a corrupt executive who's good buddies with Bush&Co., you're safe
Re:Postponing trials and appealing... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm surprised that Janklow even got 100 days. Tennessee Senator Koella was drunk, hit a motorcyclist and left him to die on the road. Koella served no time. And then they named the road after Koella when he died of natural causes.
Martha Stewart is going to prison because she's not politically connected, and probably because she's female. If only she was in Skull & Bones...
Re:Postponing trials and appealing... (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that the ways the laws regulating monopolies are written don't criminalize executives who actually make the decisions for the corporation
Re:Postponing trials and appealing... (Score:3, Interesting)
There needs to be a bill passed into law such that ANY PRODUCTS THAT HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE MONOPOLISTIC IN BEHAVIOUR, or SIMILARLY CONTROVERISAL SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY INJUNCTIONED AND WITHDRAWN FROM PUBLIC SALE UNTIL SAID CASE IS COMPLETED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
A subclause stating that the above could only apply if the manufacturer was FOUND GUILTY ON MULTIPLE COUNTS OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR AND IN MULTIPLE COUNTRIES / CONTIENTS would easily put a limiting
I did the math (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny -- of course the offices all run on Linux (and/or Netware to this day, thank you
There something wrong with this guys equations
It sure seems that with EVERY major computer type company you look at they're all going one Unix or the other. IBM is Linux. Redhat Linux (obviously
Microsoft obviously has enough money to be a around for a long while. Even while their markets are being eaten left and right. Windows is, well, a technological JOKE at best -- comparing it personally to any of the Unix's out there. OpenOffice sure isn't going away. Who knows WordPerfect may decently re-appear and there's always -X- company out there to come along. What else does Microsoft make money at? Not much.
I see their bottom line continueing to be eaten away -- left and right. Mean while their costs will continue to sky rocket and things will be, well, fun to watch...
Re:I did the math (Score:5, Informative)
Those of us that use XP and 2k would not agree with you. They are both a hell of a lot more stable than Win95/98/SE/ME. 2K in particular is very popular with 3D artists who couldn't bear to lose a render to a crash.
Re:I did the math (Score:4, Funny)
They are both a hell of a lot more stable than Win95/98/SE/ME
In a rear-end collision a Corvair is safer than a Pinto.
Re:I did the math (Score:4, Funny)
That's damning with faint praise....
Re:I did the math (Score:4, Insightful)
Macs are Mach-based (Score:2, Interesting)
They run on a Mach kernel with some BSD userland tools.
Microsoft obviously has enough money to be a around for a long while. Even while their markets are being eaten left and right.
Heh, only on Slashdot do you see statements like this. "Microsoft's market is being eaten left and right!" I've been hearing that since 1998. Linux makes gains here and there, but it's mostly in markets in which UNIX has traditionally existed. Nobody's market is really being eaten except for UNIX. W
What a suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a suprise (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, they may have wanted it that way since it requires less labor to process the ticket than it does to haul away all those coins.
Re:What a suprise (Score:2)
The school I was at had an interesting solution to this problem. Every time you got a ticket, the new fine was the previous fine times 2. If you paid $10 on the first offense, the second offense would be $20, the third wou
Re:What a suprise (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What a suprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a suprise (Score:2)
Re:What a suprise (Score:2)
Well, of course... (Score:3, Funny)
How they'll pay Sun Microsystems... (Score:5, Funny)
TO antitrust,competition,consumer & trade prac (Score:5, Informative)
A plea for relief from Microsoft's escalating anti-competitive tactics. [blogspot.com]
Japan Joins Global Pressures on Microsoft (Score:2)
Same concept as the old-style FCC finings (Score:5, Insightful)
Previously, the FCC was limited to fining $27,500 per offense - and Clear Channel, pulling in many millions a year syndicating Howard Stern, would gladly pay the small fine knowing that the 'controversy' only increased his ratings, resulting in even higher profits for them. When the FCC recently changed their fine structure to $275,000 per station per offense, that could result in many millions in fines each time... which is what resulted in Clear Channel dropping Stern from most of their stations.
In both this and the EU/Microsoft cases, small fines don't work, and large fines will either be appealled and reduced or attacked as being unreasonable. The only solutions that will actually change behavior are the ones that will cause serious economic harm, without seeming unreasonable - suspending licenses of non-complying stations, or forcing Microsoft to open code/APIs and unbundle apps (or even splitting up the different sections of the company.)
-T
Well, Duh! (Score:5, Interesting)
Back during the Watergate scandals, a big corp got caught making illegal contributions to a Republican slush fund. They had to pay a fine, of course. A reporter, noticing the paltry size of the fine, remarked to one of the lawyers, "I'll bet your fee was higher than that." The lawyer responded heatedly, "I should hope so!"
But don't respond with a round of lawyer bashing. That's like blaming garbagemen for pollution. Instead, go out and elect a President who will appoint an Attorney General who thinks that anti-trust laws need penalities that actually hurt.
Re:Well, Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
These two are mutually exclusive. Anyone who can get elected will have had their campaign financed by someone that this hurts. Anyone who hasn't had their campaign financed by someone that this hurts can't get elected.
bah... (Score:2, Insightful)
In anti-trust law the actors are individuals, companies, and regulators. The clock rate of the overall system was defined no later than the 1930s when the most recent anti-trust laws were passed. The primary data bus is provided by the U.S. Mail.
Holy mixed metaphors Batman! This just makes no sense. Actors and clock rates! Please... don't overclock your actors! Also what is the US Mail doing in here? Maybe I missed som
Re:bah... (Score:3, Insightful)
An "Actor" may not be a person; it is an "object" that has an "action." ("Gratuitious" use of quotes provided by Qwerty(r).) He is comparing the legal system to a digital system; it kinda works, I guess.
As far as the USPS is concerned: th
Re:bah... (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically Cringely is arguing that the court system, whose timetables are based on pre-industrial information flows (i.e. the time it takes a man on horse and buggy to get the handwritten documents from the lawyer's office to a court house), cannot keep up with the hijinks MS is pulling in the relatively fast-paced digital age. By the time this particular case goes through appeals, etc., the story will be ancient in computer terms. MS will have screwed consumers 50 ways from Sunday in the meantime.
As far as USPS, or European postal systems having to do with MS legal difficulties -- how do you think the documents were presented to the courts? Fax? Email? ;) Now, reflect and understand why the courts can't keep up with MS-BS.
Nothing you can do... (Score:3, Interesting)
Even a forced break-up, splitting up the OS and Office divisions, would probably not slow them down too much. Then you would just have 2 monopolies instead of 1.
The forced open-sourcing of Windows is the way to go!
Re:Nothing you can do... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope to God you are kidding. Not only would this be completely unfair, but it would also be an admission that Open Source cannot compete with MS.
If you think forcing MS to open source is fair, maybe you wouldn't mind if the state turned your lawn into a public park? Property is property.
Re:Nothing you can do... (Score:2)
Re:Nothing you can do... (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, like Microsoft's anti-competitive practices?
but it would also be an admission that Open Source cannot compete with MS.
It would be no such thing. Whether the source code to Windows is open has no bearing on how other open source products perform, except how they interact with Windows components. But closed source products would benefit the same way.
Property is property.
Intellectual property is NOT property.
Re:Nothing you can do... (Score:3, Informative)
Not according to the Constitution:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8
[Congress shall have the power]
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
source [house.gov]
Notice that it does not just say Congress can create copyrights. It is very specific, not only in what they can do, but why: "to promote progress". Not "to give authors a method
Re:Nothing you can do... (Score:2)
That is a bit overkill and unnecessary. All they would have to do is open the APIs and File Formats which would allow interoperability with third party applications and that should be sufficient.
Re:Nothing you can do... (Score:2)
And why's that?
Old news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Old news... (Score:3, Insightful)
All of it.
Not hard for MS to pay - how to penalize them? (Score:2)
So, if punitive monetary damages aren't sufficient to hurt a company, how CAN a government wield a realistic prod to get them back in line? They can't tell MS that they can't sell - companies would go crazy. Tariffs and taxes are again just money
Re:Not hard for MS to pay - how to penalize them? (Score:2)
Re:Not hard for MS to pay - how to penalize them? (Score:2, Informative)
Where could you start, passing laws (or using existing ones) which do not support the monopoly or fostering corporate welfare
Declaring that that these products post a threat to national security due to lax security and undue load on government and public networks
Deeming that the supplier has berached US and international laws and is therefore may not validly apply for government contracts
Declaring that no government agency may pay continued licence fees to a company which has acted illegally
Declaring th
Corporate corruption (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds kind of like corporate corruption. If you are a corporate officer and you can pillage $100M and face a 10% chance of being caught and receiving a slap on the wrist (paying a $5M fine, being banned from being on a board for directors for five years, and publically announcing that you will stop breaking the law), what would stop you?
In Microsoft's case probably most if not all of their $52B cash pile is ill-gotten and their EU fine is what, $620M? Most government taxes are higher than the 1.2% ill-gotten-gains tax.
Fines are not Punishment (Score:5, Insightful)
Happy Trails!
Erick
Re:Fines are not Punishment (Score:5, Insightful)
I know like everybody says stuff like this, but it is just not right. Being raped should not be part and parcel of a prison sentence. Yes, it was funny in Office Space when they joked about "pound-you-in-the-ass prison", but I am concerned about living in a world where rape is viewed as justice, even informally. While I may not like Windows and Microsoft and even Bill Gates, he certainly doesn't deserve to be raped for ruthlessly creating a monopoly in computer software
In short, prison for executives who view themselves and their corporations as above the law? Absolutely. Should they have to make license plates or make gravel or pick up trash from the highway? That would be great. But raped? That is just barbaric.
I know you probably didn't really mean you wanted Bill Gates raped for his crimes, and I am not trying to be the PC police or anything. I am just disturbed by how nonchalantly we seem to treat the issue of prison rape.
Re:Fines are not Punishment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fines are not Punishment (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fines are not Punishment (Score:4, Insightful)
It's hard to know if $600M means anything to Gates personally; it likely wouldn't effect anything he does, but the fact he was losing that money out of his own pocket might have a psychological effect.
For the vast majority of CEOs, $600M would be a devastating personal fine; many may have enough squirreled away in "safe" places that they won't starve or be on the street(cf. OJ Simpson's "pension"), but they might also not be on a 200ft yacht or travelling in a lear jet, either.
The next step is to make many of these corporate behaviors criminal offenses with jail time as a possible option. While no CEO wants to lose a personal fortune, even retaining a cushy cash safety net is meaningless if you're making license plates in an orange jumpsuit.
Related (Score:4, Insightful)
Fight Club? (Score:5, Insightful)
This reminds me of the scene in the movie, where Ed Norton's character explains that if it is cheaper for a company to pay fines, than to recall a potentially-deadly product, then they will opt for the former.
This is one rather unfortunate downside of capitalism; it only works when government has enough regulatory power to compell companies not to harm its citizens. Once a government is in the pockets of business, the citizens are in big trouble.
Re:Fight Club? (Score:2, Informative)
"Take the number of vehicles in the field, (A), and multiply it by the probable rate of failure, (B), then multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement, (C). A times B times C equals X.
If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
But that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be. (Score:4, Insightful)
But that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be.
The company is in business solely to maximize profit. This makes it's behavior fit the definition of psychopathy/sociopathy - like about one/three percent of the population.
The government is in business to co-opt vigilantism by providing a coherent and understandable set of rules, including punishments for non-compliance that:
- convince most psychopaths/sociopaths that their best interests are served by following the rules, and
- taking out of circulation any that don't follow the rules, once it becomes clear that they won't follow them.
If the fines and other sanctions are low enough that businesses find it more profitable to be scofflaws than law-abiding, it's the fault of the GOVERNMENT, according its own legal theories.
Why not? (Score:3, Funny)
This happens.. (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems he forgets one small detail (Score:4, Insightful)
He seems to base his whole article around the idea that Microsoft appeals simply to postpone any form of compliance so that they can continue to make as much money as possible.
I wonder if it occurs to him that maybe the appeal because they don't feel what they're doing is illegal, or at least feel the punishment handed out is too harsh.
Internal Oversight Panel? (Score:2)
I'm not saying 3 people could really change them, but are they actually there watching this unfold or has the oversight since been dissolved for some reason?
Summary (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe it's me, but that article was waay too long winded to state the obvious: As long as Microsoft can turn a profit after any sort of penalities given them, they have no motovation to comply to any sort of antitrust regulation.
That, and that Pulpit guy likes Geometry.
Continuing Criminal Enterprise? (Score:3, Interesting)
Close. But you missed the point of part of the wind: That complying with the rulings COSTS Microsoft more than the fines.
So it itsn't just that the fines are too little to matter. It's that COMPLIANCE is TOO EXPENSIVE, and the fines are too small to shift that balance.
Just lik
Cut the Gordion Knot (Score:2)
Cringly is generally correct, but he misses a very important point; MS's approach only works if the worst punishment available is a fine. In theory, at least, there are more drastic punishments available. The most obvious, and one that Judge Kollar-Kotelly should consider if she agrees that MS is failing to behave- is to break up the company. Breaking up the company was the originally proposed solution, but it was rejected as too drastic; if fines and behavioral constraints don't work then the courts sho
This guy sucks (Score:2, Informative)
Don't believe me? Look up the last slashbork story that quoted him on anything remotely technical and read through the comments, preferably at +3 or so. Yeah, that hurts.
Oh, but when he goes off in a bogus "M$ is teh suxx" rant, he gets airplay. I don't believe for a second he's got the scoop "from friends of friends" on what's goin
But Microsoft will lose. (Score:2, Interesting)
Linux adoption continues to increase.
Microsoft has a bad quarter.
Microsoft panics.
Microsoft digs through their 100s of patents, and find something that IBM unwittingly viol
Doing the math in the Linux cases: Linux cant win (Score:5, Funny)
-$699 liscencing fee
= -$699 net profit
Poor Justice (Score:2)
Hey, stop picking on poor Justice. Sure she may have put on a few pounds, is no longer nicknamed 'swift Justice' any longer and has clouded vision at times, but I'd still rather have her as my friend than my enemy.
Autos too... (Score:2)
Re:Autos too... (Score:4, Informative)
Digital Pollution (Score:2, Informative)
So maybe we should view M$ programs as a form of digital pollution and turn them into the EPA. I know my health would improve if they fixed a few of their bugs:)
That's all fine and dandy... (Score:2, Insightful)
yup, I agree (Score:2, Informative)
Microsoft, like any large company, is not a person, even though it is treated like one by the law.
Microsoft doesn't care about the moral or ethical point of view. They just care about dollars.
And the government can't punish microsoft by putting it in jail, that's not even possible. They can't do anyt
Happens in other companies (Score:2)
Ever so often green smoke would come up out of one of the smoke stacks. One time a worker looked up and said there's another 50K in fines.
Went on to explain it was cheaper to pay the fine then get rid of properly.
I have no idea if he was serious.
Re:Happens in other companies (Score:3, Interesting)
Something even scarier is that businesses can buy "permits to pollute" & barter, buy & sell those permits within their respective industries.
Corporate 3 Strikes... ph34r M3!!!1! (Score:3, Interesting)
A little sauce for the goose [corporate3strikes.org], my friend.
l /main552270.shtml [cbsnews.com]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/05/nationa
This is such a fantastically good idea. Imagine watching our congressppl(on both sides of the isle) try to explain why they can't quite support it.
Hours of entertainment ensue.
At your expense.
Divide and Conquer (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember that the original judgement order would have split Microsoft up. Remember also that they fought it tooth and nail because they knew that if it happened - then they really would have had problems.
Remember AT&T was split up and we got better phone service. IBM had to split up and we now have microcomputers that are so cheap you could work at MacDonald's and still buy one. Microsoft should be split up so software can evolve the way it should.
But then, Microsoft has enough money to buy anything and anyone. So the guy is right. When you are making so much money that you can thumb your nose at the law - who's laws do you live by? The answer is - no one's but your own. Someone giving you a hard time? Buy them off or buy someone who will remove the problem. And that doesn't mean you have to hire a hit man. You just need to hire/buy/create another company to put pressure on legislators, or do letter writing campaigns, or even just visit these people and hint that your company which brings vast wealth into the U.S. would leave and...well, I'm sure you get the picture.
So did the DOJ of Utah. If you have forgotten, remember that Microsoft was in big trouble with the State of Utah [internetnews.com] for creating a company which wrote ficticious letters to them asking for leniency in their case against Microsoft. IMHO - that is a $10,000.00 fine for each and every letter written and a 5-10 in jail for each offense. Since there were litterally thousands of letters we should never see Mr. Gates or anyone else who was in charge of Microsoft at the time ever again. Yet - there have been no arrests even though Microsoft admitted they had done this.
I think Mr. Roosevelt said it best:"...So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory."
We need victory. True victory and not hollow lapdog lickings. But all we have gotten so far is a pat on the head.
Later.
This is how MSFT handles ALL contracts (Score:4, Insightful)
Cringely takes this up to the monopoly cases and class actions but it's the same game. This is why I've been saying, since the mid 90's, that any company that works with Microsoft is on the road to distruction. Sure, you might find one or two companies that were bought out and survive within the walls of their Redmond offices but most are just crushed and their bones just tossed out with the trash.
I still can't believe Sun Microsystems tried to use another legal document to settle with Microsoft. Look at all the stuff Sun and Microsoft agreed to. Dumb! Dumb! Dumb! They should have just taken the $$$ and walked away. IMHO.
LoB
how to take on Dagobert Duck (Score:3, Interesting)
Easy : never ever put financial sanctions on them. Only put regulatory sanctions on such Corporations. For instance take the EU vs. Microsoft case : a $600.= million fine is pocket money.
So demand Microsoft to remove the Media Player with the sanction , that if Microsoft fails to do so in time, Microsoft would just loose their commercial chamber registration and license, and thus would be forced to stop doing business in Europe. Easy as it gets.
Robert
He's missed the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft is a lot less strong than it looks - its all based on share value. If in a few years time desktop share starts to fall due to corporate Linux use, users are even more reluctant to upgrade yet again or purchase 6GHz machines with 4GB memory to run Longhorn, and they have no escape route into other markets because of EU action, they won't be a happy company.
Re:Great Business Plan! (Score:5, Insightful)
I seem to remember[1] this being a problem with the EPA laws years ago. The cost of disposing of waste legally was more expensive than dumping it illegally and paying the fine. It's a no brainer from a business point of view. As long as non-compliance makes them more money than compliance, even with the fines, guess which they're going to choose.
[1] this might be an instance of "creative memory" rather than actual fact, but the analogy still holds.
Re:Great Business Plan! (Score:3, Informative)
Hartmut's document [ffii.org] in short:
EU Boosts Microsoft's Monopoly
The European Commission's competition procedings against Microsoft have led to a verdict which gives a big boost to Microsoft's monopoly position in the OS market and helps Microsoft expand this position to other markets. While the Commission may have earned substantial revenues for itself by imposing a one-time fine of 1% of Microsoft's liquid cash reserves, the smallprint of the
Re:Total BS (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Total BS (Score:5, Insightful)
-
There is nothing to stop the EU from retrying them and upping the fine if they keep it up. That's like saying you should get life for your first parking ticket.
Did you actually RTFA? Cringley points out that even that won't matter. The justice system moves so slowly that by the time the new trial winds down and MS has to pay the fine, they'll have earned billions more than the fine costs them, even adding in interest from the original fine date. The EU's max fine isn't enough to even dent MS.I hate to say it (because I don't care for Microsoft's actions) but I'm afraid Cringley is right, MS will win no matter what as far as the courts and anti-trust goes. Ironically the biggest threat to them is possibly Wal-mart's new PCs coming with Sun's Java Desktop on them. What's so ironic about it is that Wal-mart is another example of a company so huge that it can just ignore compliance because it'll cost it less to pay the fines.
Re:Total BS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interesting, but his economics are wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
IANAL, but I believe that a product can only be pulled if it poses a (physical) danger to its users. Buggy as Windows may be, I hardly think software poses that kind of threat (unless it is used in life-threatening environments, which the EULA specifically prohibits, anyways).
In any case, there's a difference between going after a company for its behavior and removing products from the market for political reasons. Nobody should be forced to buy Windows; but if I want to use it, there's no reason I should be prevented from doing so, either.
Re:Interesting, but his economics are wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Cringley peripherally touches on that question, too, by noting that Microsoft has a lot of political allies. It is, of course, a matter of popular wisdom that money buys legislation, but that's not strictly true. You are, for example, not ever going to cough up enough dough to get Tom DeLay to advocate for same-sex marriage or to get Teddy Kennedy to sponsor a bill in favor of racial segregation. All but a few of these people really are ideologically driven, and all the money buys you is wiggle room, which is significant for most politicians, but not all-consuming.
The real problem is that there is an ideological faction in Congress -- which is primarily but hardly exclusively Republican -- which sees business and making money as a good thing, and which naively reasons, therefore, that bigger business and more money must be a better thing. These ideologues are not (especially) corrupt or stupid, but they are blinded by their own dogma. The libertarian wing of the faction is particularly blinded by their adherence to the doctrine of a self-correcting market because they refuse to recognize that, all other things being equal, wealth is itself a competitive advantage.
This will not change except at the ballot box, and it will not ever be the primary issue: the average person doesn't care enough about this to choose a candidate on the basis of their feelings about Microsoft or antitrust laws.
Now, mind you, I'm not arguing against being politically active by any means, but the best way to fight Microsoft (and Oracle, Adobe, Macromedia, etc., etc., ad nauseam) is to write excellent free end-user software. Sure, it's still necessary to fend off the more ridiculous legislative initiatives and vote wisely, but in the end, making the better product will win out.
(Now, by "better", I mean better in the eyes of the average consumer, not the average software engineer, but that's a rant for another occasion.)
Re:Interesting, but his economics are wrong. (Score:4, Funny)
My cat's free next November...
Re:Revoke their charter? (Score:3, Informative)
Personally, I think Microsoft's proved more than enough times that the corporate death penalty should be an available option when companies get that large - as Cringely pointed out, in a roundabout way, Microsoft has so much money on hand, financial "remedies" ar