Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft Faces Korean Deadline

Posted by Zonk on Sat Feb 25, 2006 07:22 AM
from the play-nice-with-the-neighbors dept.
Microsoft Government The Courts News
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Politics: Microsoft To Fight Korean Verdict 139 comments
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. "
[+] Microsoft Loses South Korea Patent Ruling 68 comments
mikesd81 writes "Ars Technica is carrying an article discussing Microsoft's denial for an appeal in a South Korean patent infringement case. The case focused on the automatic translation between English and Korean in Microsoft Office and was brought against the company in 2000. The Supreme Court of South Korea ruled that the patents are effective for technologies switching the input mode between Korean and English." From the article: "Technology firm P&IB, which sued Microsoft on behalf of Professor Lee, wants Microsoft to ante up to the tune of W70 billion ($75 million) in a separate lawsuit covering damages. 'Microsoft adapted our technologies to its Office package without dealing with Prof. Lee and it claimed the patents were not effective in the court,' P&IB President Kim Kil-hae told The Korea Times."
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.

Microsoft Faces Korean Deadline 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Let's get it out of the way... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In South Korea, only old people use Windows.
  • I get what some people are saying about out-of-the-box functionality, it does seem strange to expect an OS not to ship with default apps to provide standard functionality for e.g. media playing and IM. Are they going to apply the same principles to Mas OS and Linux?

    Maybe what they should be doing is making Microsoft include alternatives, or even just a link to a web site where people can do a simple process to install and set as default alternative apps for standard functions. Click here to make Mozilla Fir
    • Why not make sure that these bundled apps are not a part of the vendor lock-in? A good media player included with the OS? Sure, but make the video/audio formats open.
    • The problem is two-fold: they hide the cost of those add-on packages in the cost of the OS, while other software authors have to be added on on top of the OS. We saw similar problems with Netscape's webservers and IIS in the NT 4.0 workstation vs. server lawsuits.

      The other problem is that resellers are prohibited by their licensing from Microsoft from un-installing such components and replacing them with other add-on utilities, or even making the other add-on components the default. Microsoft got caught re
    • The rules are different when you're a convicted monopolist who has already got into trouble for using its desktop monopoly to move into other areas. If MS had only 20% of the market and played reasonably nicely with everyone else this wouldn't be a story now would it. When MS start behaving as if the law is something they have to obey like everyone else instead of treating it as an inconvenient business expense then perhaps they'll lose a lot of their enemies.

  • Ridiculous (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ton1c (924673)
    I'm sorry but i think we are forgetting a few key things here.

    Microsoft is the maker of the software, they made it the way they wanted, and they allowed other companies to build software for it.

    Why then should they be forced to not bundle their own software on it? They own the software, not the korean government.

    If they want to make it more convenient for people without internet to use their computers then there should be absolutely no problem with that, they have the right to.
    • I'm sorry, but I think *you're* forgetting a few things.

      They can be forced to not bundle certain items together *in S. Korea* because of a little ol' thing called "sovereignty". Despite the best efforts of transnational corporations, national governments still have certain rights to enforce laws within their own borders. These include anti-trust laws, which is what MS ran afowl of. (And as a side note, yes, anti-trust laws are *very* important in maintaining some semblance of a "free market".) In shor

    • You must either be very young or a troll. MS used unfair business practices to establish and expand its monopoly. In essence, it squashed all competition through exclusive business deals and then raised its prices to exploit the cornered market. You should look at the Netscape, Corel, Novel and SCO law suits to see the pattern. MS has been found guilty of these predatory business practices in several countries. Those countries are now using their anti-monopoly laws to redress the issue and restore a fa
    • The rules are different for monopolies - 'nuff zed.

  • MS to make another "Special" version of Windows... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by linebackn (131821) on Saturday February 25 2006, @08:30AM (#14799844)
    And also in the news, Microsoft is to create another "special" version of Windows to address South Korean antitrust concerns. This "special" version will be given a lobotomy and ride the short bus to school much like the European "Windows N" AKA "Windows Reduced Media Edition".

    Other third party applications include very advanced technology called an "uninstaller" and have done so for years. This technology is so advanced that Microsoft as of yet is completely unable to replicate it or integrate it in to their Windows OS.

    Uninstaller technology would give users and OEMs a choice of which software applications are installed with Windows. When asked to comment head of Microsoft marketing MS. Bob stated "We firmly believe that users do not need this functionality, any kind of choice is too complicated. Everyone should just use the software we provide them and depend on us." The interview was interruped by the defening sound of a compeditor getting crushed.

  • Microsoft should nail this one... (Score:3, Funny)

    by creimer (824291) on Saturday February 25 2006, @09:00AM (#14799931) Homepage
    All Microsoft has to do to avoid antitrust in Korea is to include a Starcraft-clone with every copy of Windows.

  • milking MS for all it's worth? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by krunk4ever (856261) on Saturday February 25 2006, @09:03AM (#14799945) Homepage
    Is it just me or does anyone else feel all these "governments" view Microsoft as a cash cow and are trying to milk it for all it's worth.

    Honestly, the definition needs to be redifined. What Linux, Apple and Microsoft is selling (or giving away for free) is not just an OS, but a complete package. Would anyone even bother buying an OS that doesn't come with a media player, a internet browser, or internet messenger in nowadays?

    I understand that because of Microsoft's monopoly, it's gives then an unfair advantage of deploying any software they want, but browser, IM, media player are such core software in today's society, I dare you find a modern OS that doesn't have all of them in it. It's not like they're PREVENTING you from installing another software to replace it. By restricting one company from putting these software in, but allowing everyone else to do it, in my opinion, is what's unfair. If they forced every OS to not include a browser, media player, and IM client, I can be more content with that decision.

    Just my rant and 2 cents.
    • Thats exactly right. Nobody disagrees that MS is a monopoly. But govts have to look at today's market and think can MS be competitive without bundling some of these goodies in their OS. Unbundling different items from OS do not offer level playing field. What offers level playing field is stopping MS from making unfair deals with OEMs not to include competitors applications. We all know what a joke EU's ruling about unbundling media player from OS is. I think this needs to stop. US needs to take this case t
    • What the EU and South Korea are worried about is the fact that OEMs have no choice but to bundle IE, MSN Messenger, Windows Media Player etc with their computers which means that competitors in this area cannot compete on a level playing field by having the OEMs bundle their software exclusively. This is the important distinction in the area of anti-trust law. The "exclusively" is the key. An OEM cannot distribute a machine with Windows installed but without IE, MSN Messenger, or WMP. The end user can't eve
    • Oh you mean I could just replace Internet Explorer with anything I want right? I could just go to windows updates then with this new browser and download my updates right? I could install it without having some idiotic messenger icon bugging me every five minutes to sign up right? They use their dominate platform to extend their reach to other markets. This in most countries is illegal and thus the reason they are being fined and being required to unbundle. Yes other platforms bundle software but then again
      • First of all, you CAN remove messenger and wmp completely from your system (Add/Remove Programs -> Windows Components). The only item in question you can't remove is Internet Explorer. But imagine the fact that you can indeed uninstall IE (if it wasn't so tightly integrated with the file system), do you think these government decisions would change? Does the ability of uninstalling IE even help Microsoft's case and what they're being charged for?

        As for you comment regarding updates. Does Apple have "othe

    • Well, contrary to what you say, it seems that governments are getting tired of MS seeing their citzens as cash cows. And if they need to destroy MS to guarantee the right of people to not be stolen, then, will make it so.

      There are still some governemnts out there that work for the people. Well, probably not all the time, but at least for a few moments.

    • Every Linux distribution I know of ships with the ability to install any of several different media players, or office suites. Linux has inherent choice built in.
      • Every Linux distribution I know of ships with the ability to install any of several different media players, or office suites. Linux has inherent choice built in.

        And yet, most Linux distributions do ship/install with certain apps "bundled." This is especially true for the distributions touted as "newbie friendly." And these distributions -- not to mention legions of /. wags -- make a point of touting all these bundled apps as proof that you can do anything in Linux that you can do in Windows, with the

        • No; where do people get this ridiculous stuff? MS and Windows is singled out because MS is *violating law*. Apple, Red Hat, Ubuntu, etc, are *not violating law*. There is no double standard, and there is no government conspiracy against MS or Windows. As I said, MS keeps getting sued and punished because they continue to ignore the laws of the majority of the countries they are doing business in.

          Distributions do not produce Linux. They also don't usually produce the software that they're shipping as pa

        • I think it's a double-standard. South Korea and the EU are trying to cripple Windows because they don't want Windows to be able to compete on a level playing field.

          Anti-trust regulations exist because a monopoly situation is not anywhere near a level playing field.

          So yes, they could force the playing field to slant, but it'd not be making the playing field un-level; it would (ideally) make the playingfield level, since it wasn't level to start with .

          But don't cripple a product that millions of consum

    • No, these countries are just taking back some of the money that MS stole from their citizens through unfair business practices and inflated prices.
    • Is it just me or does anyone else feel all these "governments" view Microsoft as a cash cow and are trying to milk it for all it's worth.

      Forget it. Microsoft has been in court for monopolistic business practices for as long as I can remember. They wrote the book on software bundling and how to use it to destroy the competition. Microsoft continues to do this, despite all of the lawsuites and the fines they've had to pay, simply because they've always gained more from this practice than they've ever lost
      • I agree they should not be allowed to prevent bundling of alternative software or give incentive to OEMs for not installing competing software. In fact I find the whole concept where Intel is allowed to give discounts to Dell for not selling systems with AMD CPUs totally wrong and I haven't figured out why the Government isn't getting on Intel's case.

        But this case isn't against them making such negotiations with OEMs. It's against them for including software that comes with their OS which is a very round ab
        • Why not fine both the OEM and Microsoft

          Why would you fine the OEM for being a victim of Microsoft's abuse of monopoly power?

          And as for merely permitting the installation of other software, that is certainly an improvement but it is hardly a useful remedy.

          Microsoft's explicit monopoly strategy is that these other applications are TIED to the operating system and irremovable. They don't mind *too* much if alternatives *can* be installed. That doesn't hamper their tactic for monopolizing the other applications
  • Thirty-five million dollars, eh? Wow, what a horrendous penalty. That'll throw the fear of God into Gates and Ballmer for sure. No doubt about it, their days are numbered.
    • I wonder if South Korea will be as soft and in-effectual as the EU. Me thinks not.

      I wonder if Microsoft considers South Korea a "real" country, or just some some pathetic 2nd-world country, only on the map because of the antics of its neighbors to the north, trying to flex muscles it doesn't have.

      "Unbundle messenger... Uh-huh... Suuuuuuure we will. Tell ya what... Go home and pretend we never had this little chat, and we won't 'stratify' our market to make all Microsoft products cost a few million dol
      • It would hurt Microsoft a lot to pull out of the EU. Pulling out of South Korea, though? Somehow that doesn't strike me as one of their cash-cow sales regions.

        I'll bite...you see, with the US & China tied as #1 for most internet users, South Korea comes in right behind them. #4 is so far below, there isn't much reason to even consider it.

        I'm certain MS AND South Korea both have a more accurate view of the world market than you an all the others who joke about how much South Korea matters in this e
        • South Korea comes in right behind them. #4 is so far below, there isn't much reason to even consider it.

          Yes, but out of all the people in SK using MS, how many of them have _legal_ installations of their software?

          While China and other Asian countries are very advanced in the use of computers and Internet technology (and if they're not advanced they have the numbers to make it count), how many are legal?

          If the market in SK would have, say 1mil customers (totally random number), and out of those only 200k ha
          • Hows that any different to the US, or Europe?

            Koreas not some backwoods little peasant country. Its as advanced as Japan and the USA and has a fairly decent western standard living style.

            4th highest GDP. Mull it over man.

            Regardless, when a country fines a company like microsoft 40 million odd dollars, it doesnt actually have a choice not to pay it. The court has the perogative to just *take* it, being that its a fine and all.

            If you trade in a country, you follow its laws or face fines , jails or exile.
        • I'll bite...you see, with the US & China tied as #1 for most internet users

          Which means... What, exactly?

          You can get on the internet without Windows - In fact, South Korea REQUIRES government computers to run open source software (ie, Linux), with the business and academic communities resultingly all-but-forced to do the same if they want to get anything done.

          So, I repeat my original point - The South Korean market means very little to Microsoft at the moment. While you could argue that Microsoft
          • You can get on the internet without Windows - In fact, South Korea REQUIRES government computers to run open source software (ie, Linux), with the business and academic communities resultingly all-but-forced to do the same if they want to get anything done.
            Why are the business and academic communities resultingly all-but-forced to use Linux if they want to get anything done, provided the government mandates Linux use?

    • Re:this is getting ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)

      by greginnj (891863) on Saturday February 25 2006, @08:13AM (#14799796) Homepage Journal
      Exactly, which is why Dell, HP, Lenovo, or whoever should be able to choose which browser, IM player, and media player they install on the complete systems they sell, and not be forced by the OS/kernel maker to include one and pay a penalty even if they don't want it.

      Microsoft doesn't sell computers, it sells operating systems and application software. Computer makers should be able to choose which components, if any, they want to buy from Microsoft.
      • Actually, they can, they may not be able to strip every part of the Microsoft product from the OS, but they are perfectly able to install, and make default any of those applications. You can also turn off completely the competing Microsoft program by unselecting "Enable Access to this program." All this is easily done with the OPK tools that any computer company that orders 3 or more packs of Windows, is a Microsoft Partner, or is an MSDN subscriber, and uses Microsoft OEM software.

        A total stripping just

        • Developers have come to rely on these built in components

          You have just defined Microsoft's illegal tactic for abusing it's monopoly in one area to impose a monoploy in these other areas and prohibiting anyone else from competing. Software from various other companies come to *RELY* on the Internet Explorer components being built in and have no reason to support Firefox or anything else (which most likely is not present anyway) as an alternative. Exactly how other company's sofware is hijacked to force peopl
      • not be forced by the OS/kernel maker to include one and pay a penalty even if they don't want it

        I haven't RTFA, but how is MS penalising computer makers for including 3rd party IM programs, media players, etc? Only this month I set up a laptop (Sony I think) which included bundled copies of Yahoo Messenger and RealPlayer alongside Windows Messenger and Windows Media Player. Did Sony have to pay some terrible price to be able to do this?

        Surely a manufacturer's freedom to bundle Yahoo Messenger with th

        • I haven't RTFA, but how is MS penalising computer makers for including 3rd party IM programs, media players, etc?

          Here ya go, the juicy details [com.com] of Real's suit from 2003. From this link:

          Other charges allege that Microsoft used contractual restrictions and financial incentives to "force PC makers to accept Windows PC operating systems with the bundled Windows Media Player and to restrict the ability of PC makers to preinstall or promote competing digital media players."

          According to the suit, PC ma

          • Microsoft used contractual restrictions and financial incentives to "force PC makers to accept Windows PC operating systems with the bundled Windows Media Player and to restrict the ability of PC makers to preinstall or promote competing digital media players."

            In that case surely a better angle of attack would be to force MS to stop their shady business practices. Even if they were forced to unbundle some stuff from Windows, they could just offer 'financial incentives' to PC makers who put it all back ag
        • Right, because if there's one thing that MS does really well, is build good hardware [engadget.com]. If they want to do that, fine, that's called a free market.

          Your first sentence describes what they're already doing, and is what all the bundling lawsuits are about. As for licensing, it's a pretty incestuous relationship, but ultimately Microsoft needs the boxmakers more than the boxmakers need Microsoft. The volume licenses MS sells to the boxmakers are a goldmine for the company that they wouldn't want to mess wi

        • I'm not a buisness expert, but can't you uninstall anything the hell you want from windows ('cept IE, admittedly) and make an image from that disk, and image it to 50,000+ PC's you sell? Also, can you put firefox on that 1st pc, and make it the default before you make the image? They do it with Symantec/Norton Security Suite all the time. And, can't Dell write a program to present the user with choices of defaults to use?

          Sure you can do all that ... technically. The question is, can you do so legally?

    • Did you know that on OSX if you don't like Safari you can uninstall it? And with virtually all Linux distributions you can uninstall the included media player, chat client and browser if you want. Microsft has fixed their OS so that these programs can't be uninstalled. That's what makes it anti-competitive. Anti-competitive = monopoly (or at least an attempt at one). You're the one who isn't getting it.

      Btw, I'm one of many people who doesn't chat so a chat client is most certainly not a fundamental part of

      • Did you know that on OSX if you don't like Safari you can uninstall it?

        Yes, but it doesn't uninstall WebKit, does it? Likewise, you can uninstall IE through "Add/Remove Windows Components," or by ACL, but people still bitch because it leaves the trident rendering engine.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.