Microsoft Chided Over Exclusive Music Idea 331
grumpyman writes "The federal judge overseeing Microsoft Corp.'s business practices scolded the company Wednesday over a proposal to force manufacturers to tether iPod-like devices to Microsoft's own music player software. Microsoft blamed the proposal on a newly hired, "lower-level business person" who did not understand the company's obligations under the antitrust settlement."
"Microsoft regrets (Score:5, Insightful)
Blame Management! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Microsoft regrets (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Blame Management! (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Especially if this person is responsible for these kinds of deals, shouldn't an understanding of the anti-trust settlement restrictions be a requirement for this position?
Are you fucking kidding me? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Simpler explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, Microsoft has used and still wants to use their monopoly in the OS market to force out competition (OS2) and even in other markets (Netscape).
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, if Microsoft makes a music player of their own, then they can restrict it to only using WMP. But they shouldn't be able to force other MP3 player manufacturers to only use WMP, even though Microsoft controls the operating system.
Nice work judge, now what about OpenDocument? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Microsoft regrets (Score:5, Insightful)
MRD (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, they would say that, woudn't they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Rice-Davies [wikipedia.org]
Re:Suuuure (Score:5, Insightful)
Ballmer?
Re:"Microsoft regrets (Score:5, Insightful)
Which makes you wonder what Microsoft will be doing once those clauses of their settlement expires in 2008. Perhaps what they're really regreting is the manager letting the cat out of the bag before they could legally do it.
Doesn't matter. Antitrust law doesn't expire in 2007, only close government supervision does. If anyone thinks that this expiration means the end of Microsoft's antitrust woes, they need to think again. The reason is something called collateral estoppel. Basically all those facts decided as a necessary part of that portion of the case not overturned on appeal is beyond relitigation. I.e. in any future antitrust suit, Microsoft cannot say "We were never a predatory monopoly." The best they can say is "We are not a monopoly any more" or maybe "what we are accused of doing is not predatory." I.e. the litigation changes from establishing facts to establishing *changes* of facts since they were established.
What this means is that the whole point of the antitrust case against microsoft was the judgement that Microsoft both was a monopoly and had broken antitrust law in maintaining it. The exact details of the judgement are largely irrelevant. Indeed had Microsoft been broken up, it would have been *easy* to argue that facts had changed "Yes, Microsoft was a monopoly, your honor, but we were broken up and so the facts from the prior case no longer apply." THe fact that they are largely allowed to continue doing business as usual is *not* a good thing or a light punishment for Microsoft. Indeed it is largely a declaration that it is open season on Microsoft from an antitrust litigation point of view (in that the bar has been lowered to a rediculously low level for such claims, including continuing violations).
Already there are over 100 antitrust suits against them winding their way though a multidistrict panel including Novell v. Microsoft, Go v. Microsoft and countless more. The antitrust settlement might be a minor cut to Microsoft, but it is a cut that occurs in waters populated by a large number of man-eating sharks. Sucks to be Microsoft. Which is one reason I no longer work there.
Might as well give it a try ... (Score:1, Insightful)
White House pressures Congress to reject torture amendment [cnn.com].
Re:In defense of MS (Score:2, Insightful)
The majority of the individual employees probably are as you say.
That still doesn't change the fact that Microsoft as a company *is* a huge organization out to rape our wallets. In the current business/legal climate it almost has to be, in order to not be sued by the shareholders.
Re:In defense of MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately that job they are working so hard at is to rape our wallets, for the benefit of their stockholders.
The fact that the company is comprised of people doing the best they can is not really a valid argument against the idea that Microsoft is a huge evil organization. In fact, I would imagine that most, if not all, huge evil organizations are filled with regular people doing the best they can.
Re:Why the Music Idea (Score:1, Insightful)
1) They couldn't compete. An AV company must be able to release new signatures within hours. MS can't make a pot of coffee in less than a month.
2) Liability. Right now MS can release any crap they want and argue that it was the customer's fault that their system picked up 6 worms and 2 backdoors in 20 minutes. By shipping MSAV, they acknowleged in a measurable way that their software was insecure and may have made themselves more liable for failing to produce a secure product.
Re:Turnabout is FairPlay? (Score:5, Insightful)
No crack.... you're just confused.
"The iPod and iTunes are as anti-competitive as it gets."
Not at all... watch as I destroy your whole argument.
"The hardware is completely closed and no third party software can run on it."
That's not anticompetitive... Apple creates the whole product. You might as well go after radio manufacturers (for example) for not allowing other companies to automatically be suppliers for their knobs and buttons. If you create the entire product (hardware and software) you can include as much or as little as you want with it. If Windows could be used to the exclusion of PC hardware... then they would be allowed to bundle as much as they want without concern of leveraging their illegal monopoly.
"There are also a limited number of codec's that work with the iPod."
Actually, the iPod is pretty much on par with all other music players with regard to the number of codecs it can play.
"The only thing that you can do is play AAC, MP3 and DRM'd apple music on it."
Wrong. The iPod can play songs encoded with these CODECS:
MP3 (from 32 Kbps to 320 Kbps)
MP3 Variable Bit Rate (VBR)
AIFF *
WAV (with no compression)
The following require iPod software 1.3 or later:
M4A AAC *
M4P AAC (Protected) *
M4B AAC (iTunes Music Store Spoken Word files) *
The following require iPod software 2.2 or later or iPod mini 1.1 or later:
Apple Lossless Encoder
* Requires iTunes 4 or iTunes 4 for Windows. AAC files also require the most recent update to the iPod software.
"It is a black box. It even enforces DRM practices on non-DRM music."
Its a Black box... and of course also a white one... and no it does not enforce DRMpractices on non-DRM music.
"Apple chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only apple products to access the iTunes music store - No iPod, no iTunes."
Motorola chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only motorola LCD displays in their phones. No Motorola LCD display, no motorola phone.
Whirlpool chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only Whirlpool dish soap dispensers in their dish washers. No Whirlpool dishsoap dispenser, no Whirlpool dish washer.
Sony chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only sony buttons on their stereos. No Sony buttons, no Sony radio.
See how ridiculous your argument is? Apple creates the entire product the same way that these other companies do. Because Apple also happens to compete in a market that is largely comprised of multiple vendors each contributing a small part in a piecemeal approach to any given technological solution does not mean they are required to do so under any law as you're implying... be it legal or ethical.
"It is a monopoly now - because Apple currently has a majority of the mp3 player market share, and a 100% monopoly on music encoded in an Apple DRM format."
Keep in mind... its not illegal to be a monopoly. Its illegal to use your monopoly illegally. Apple is not doing anything that excludes competitors to enter into the market. Microsoft's spotty history is rife with this sort of behavior throughout its history. They didn't achieve their monopoly legally... and they certainly haven't maintained it legally. Apple on the other hand achieved their monopoly in the market through hard work and innovation. They are maintaining it by doing the same repeatedly.... over and over again.
"They are also actively discouraging 3rd parties from interfacing with their hardware and software (real player)."
And there's nothing illegal or unethical about that.
"Thus, they are using their monopoly advantage to exclude competition in the market of players that can play AAC/DRM formatted music."
No, any company can use the AAC codec and can attach DRM to the fo
Scary... (Score:2, Insightful)
The quote says more than I think they intended.
-Coach
Re:I don't care what they say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When are Mp3 player companies going to get it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow, how ridiculous... (Score:1, Insightful)
*Shake head*
Seesh! You'd think reading this over and over, even a stupid person will learn something.