DOJ Nixes Lax Policy, Hardens Antitrust Enforcement 249
eldavojohn writes "A policy from the Bush era seen as a hurdle to the government prosecuting companies under antitrust laws has been withdrawn by Obama's Department of Justice. From the article: 'The DOJ's Antitrust Division has withdrawn a September report that "raised too many hurdles to government antitrust enforcement and favored extreme caution" toward antitrust enforcement action, the DOJ said. The change in policy could mean that the department looks harder at the actions of technology vendors such as Google, Oracle and IBM, as detractors have raised antitrust concerns about all three in recent months.' You may recall that Google has come under some antitrust scrutiny recently and the pressure may have just gotten a little more intense."
Neat (Score:5, Interesting)
What about the root of all evil, Microsoft? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now would be a good time to break them up, as should have been done before. Why wont it happen? Because hoards of Microsoft lawyers now have jobs with the Obama administration.
End result? , lets go after anyone Microsoft doesn't like, as in Google.
Please notice that I did not use "M$" in the body of this post. The use of "M$" inflaes the paid Microsoft shills that seem to hang out here.
Re:Neat (Score:4, Interesting)
Cut in two? Not enough. The browser needs to go, simple as that. DirectX needs to be torn out, and put into competition against things like OpenGL. The office suite needs to be ripped out of the hands of the operating system people, and any future collusion absolutely prohibited. Take out the silly chat program, and make it earn it's own way. Turn Microsoft's portfolio into a damned paper doll. Competition might actually IMPROVE the various products. Those that don't improve can die out and be trashed. It isn't entirely a matter of making "Microsoft" competitive, but making each of Microsoft's products competitive.
Re:Neat (Score:5, Interesting)
I have been arguing for this for 10 years (I'm assuming the OP means breaking it into separate OS application companies). Here's why it would be good for everyone, including MS:
I don't really hate MS products. In fact, I really like Office. With the exception of PPT, nothing really has all the features and ease-of-use Office has (Keynote beats PPT soundly, though). A lot of times I have tried to move off of Office out of principle (or because of the frustrating UI of Word on the Mac--but it's still better than Office 2007!), but I always end up back, because I always find that there's something it does that nothing else does (or, rather, does right--tables in Word are the biggie).
I also liked Windows, a lot, through the Win2k/XP years. I only recently switched back to the Mac, due to the horrid mess Vista is (I really don't think 7 is much of an improvement--although it does seem a little better, from playing with the beta for a few hours). I would like to see all that talent at MS put to better use making a better product. I just don't think that it can be done with the company so big. The bigger a company is, the less each individual does--partly due to laziness/anonymity (not really that big a problem, I don't thing--most people like doing a good job), partly due to lack of clear focus. Too many cooks.
So there you go, Mr. AC. Those are the reasons why cutting MS in two would be good, exactly.
Re:What about the root of all evil, Microsoft? (Score:3, Interesting)
Heh. I should have continued. A similar search on live.com yields *no* results for Google. None.
Oh really?
Re:Neat (Score:5, Interesting)
The browser needs to go, simple as that.
Why does the browser need to go?
What is preventing you from using a different browser?
DirectX needs to be torn out, and put into competition against things like OpenGL.
What prevents an OEM from providing Open GL drivers on Windows?
What is to say that without DirectX we would have seen Open GL v3.x?
The office suite needs to be ripped out of the hands of the operating system people, and any future collusion absolutely prohibited.
What is the collusion of which you speak?
What synergy do you see between Office and Windows, that disadvantages say Open Office?
Take out the silly chat program, and make it earn it's own way.
I assume you mean MSN messenger? Check out the Win7 RC -- already done.
Turn Microsoft's portfolio into a damned paper doll. Competition might actually IMPROVE the various products.
Because you care about improving things, right? Yeah, I totally got that from your post.
Re:Neat (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok. Sorry. I forgot that you aren't going to cut me slack and try to understand what I'm saying, instead you are going to axiomatically deflect my arguments. Let me break it down for you: hypothetical car monopoly A could install a technical measure to prevent CDs that were not purchased from A from playing. Your argument
applies equally well in this situation. I.e., you are saying that A's capacity to prevent CDs purchased from competitors (that is, "might") makes it ok (i.e., "makes it right"). Your notion that each individual has the right to enter into any deal they wish allows for abuses.* In fact, it is so well recognized that laws, under the name "antitrust" were written. As an exercise for the reader, you can look up the abuses committed in the early 20th century.
Perhaps you can argue that CD's and cars are disparately different items, and subject to monopoly "bundling" protections, whereas two more closely related things such as the kernel and window manager can be "bundled." This would be a valid argument. In fact, decisions have been made that web browsers and OS's cannot be bundled; whether window managers and OS's can be bundled is a question for the courtroom. I know which side I stand, however.
*This idea you have stated is the bedrock of free market capitalism. It works very well in perfect competition. Notice, however, that not all markets admit perfect competition. In these cases, free market rules do not apply. Your morality (entering freely into agreements, etc.) may work well on the scale of 10 to 20 people. However, it does not work well with hundreds of millions of people. Additional effects come into play, and such simple rules, unfortunately, do not cut it.
It terrifies me that you Ayn Rand people don't even understand your own philosophy.
Another set of excuses for our Kleptocracy. (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, which one of these findings were so objectionable. Was it:
"No single test for determining whether conduct is anticompetitive such as the effects-balancing, profit-sacrifice, no-economic-sense, equally efficient competitor, or disproportionality tests works well in all cases. The Department encourages the continuing development of conduct-specific tests and safe harbors;"
or
"Remedies for conduct that is found to violate Section 2 should re-establish the opportunity for competition without unnecessarily chilling competitive practices or undermining incentives to invest and innovate;"
Re:Neat (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously, there is something about "monopoly" and "unfair trade practice" that you fail to understand. MS attempts to present the world with a monolithic operating system, with such claims as "the browser is an integral part of the OS", thereby using that monolithic structure to crush competition.
If, A: you don't understand that, you should read history outside of MS approved sources.
If, B: you are just trolling as an MS fanboi, no amount of explanation is going to change your mind
If, C: you really WOULD like to see MS actually make constructive contributions to computer science, as opposed to just enriching it's current stockholders, you should agree with me. Breaking up Microsoft, and forcing each division to act independently, will almost certainly make each of the divisions more standards compliant. Interoperability will improve unbelievably, because IE, for instance, won't have the wealth of the other divisions to draw on. It is only that wealth, and the stubborness of MS, that has prevented IE from being standards compliant in the past.
MS Office was nothing more than a bludgeon used by MS to re-write standards in a manner difficult to copy by other office suites last year, remember? MS reps waltzed into the conference, paid off a few people, and bullied the rest into signing off on a new standard. Phhht. As a seperate corporation, they could never have pulled that off.
Maybe MS Office really IS the best office system in the world - but it should stand on it's own merits, and not rely on all the rest of the MS monopoly.
What we have today really sucks. And, because so few people can even imagine how much better things COULD BE, they think that they are happy with it.
Your sarcasm is noted. There IS NO sarcasm in my post, here or above. I do care about improving things. I am quite certain that MS only cares about lining their pockets.
Monopolies aren't illegal (Score:3, Interesting)
However exploiting them is. For those of you asking why Google and not Apple, perhaps that's why. I'd be hard pressed to say Apple has a monopoly in any of its markets anyway.
What is the government's intent in pursuing anti-trust action? If it's to make markets more competitive there are better industries to target than microchips, software and computer manufacturing. The barrier to entry for the software market is very low. In my opinion any emphasis here should be on limiting mergers and acquisitions that stifle innovation.
However if their goal is to limit the exploitation of consumers they need to revisit telecommunications. Start with the government-granted monopolies given to the cable companies. Then take a look at the oligarchy that the wireless phone market has become. AT&T may not be the "Ma Bell" of yore but they seem to be heading that way.
Re:Neat (Score:3, Interesting)
I think a better comparison would be a piece of hardware that actually comes in the car--like the actual CD player--instead of CDs because nothing in Windows stops me from loading and running other software. I can change the CD player or other components in my car all I want. I can change some components in Windows, too; for example, I can replace the Explorer shell with KDE4 or Litestep.
I don't have the source for Windows so some things I would have to reverse-engineer or hack. I've not purchased a new car before but I assume they don't come with schematic diagrams.
I don't think Microsoft should have to make its products modular but it also shouldn't be able to do anything about people hacking it. Also, Ford doesn't make CD players or CDs.
Re:What about the root of all evil, Microsoft? (Score:2, Interesting)
That is why we need the separation of State and Economics, just as we have the separation of Church and State.
The only way to avoid the purchasing of government favoritism is to eliminate the power of the government to grant favors.
Makes Perfect Sense... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Neat (Score:3, Interesting)
"Enriching it's shareholders requires " only that sales are made. FUD makes a large number of sales.
"But any modern OS is incomplete without a browser. If you were to break up the company, you would have to include the browser in the OS unit." Wrong. Redhat doesn't make a browser, nor does Suse, Debian, or any of the other Linux OS's. A web browser is not necessary for an operating system to operate, period. There are any number of methods by which MS could offer a CHOICE of browsers, including the method used by Ubuntu: package half a dozen or more on the OS installation CD, and let the user CHOOSE which, if any, he wants.
"I would contend that it's a lack of competition that caused IE's stagnation and lack of standards compliance. " Good - you do admit that in one instance, at least, what's been good for MS has not been good for the advancement of computer sciences. Stockholders were quite happy with a substandard browser, and only opensource competition offered the stimulation to improve.
MS Office was designed and built to integrate itself into the operating system, much as the web browser does. The people with the source code to the operating system KNEW how to make it fit like a hand into a glove. Obfuscation, as much as anything, defeated some of the office suites of yesteryear. Without the insider information available to MS Office developers, WordPerfect and others were left out in the cold. Added to that was the common FUD put out by Microsoft, pressuring businesses go by MS Office to ensure "support" by MS.
And finally, justification for breaking up ANY company? It is sufficient to demonstrate that society is likely to benefit. All business exists at the sufferance of government. When government decided that hemp should be illegal in this country, all industries related to hemp went out of business. The government unilaterally decided the nation would be a better place without hemp, and that was it.
If/when the government decides that this nation would be better off without a monopolistic giant that abuses the computer sciences, microsoft will be history. No further justification needed, and no apologies to any stockholders.
Re:Neat (Score:4, Interesting)
"Pray tell, what are you restricted from installing on your Windows by Microsoft, exactly?"
Unsigned drivers on x64 Windows (including OpenSource drivers which I help to develop).
"Last I checked, neither Samba nor WINE nor ntfs-3g were sued by Microsoft."
TomTom.