Microsoft's Long-Playing Business Record 380
khendron writes "The Globe and Mail has an article which tells it like it is. Microsoft is looking at it constant court costs and anti-trust fines as simply 'the cost of doing business,' and has no intention of changing. A telling quote 'Losing or settling case after case, Microsoft has tested the bounds of antitrust and patent infringement law, with little evidence that its power has waned or that its behaviour has been substantially changed. Rivals and many legal experts say antitrust law itself has come out the worse for the skirmishes, while Microsoft appears to have built the ongoing scrutiny, fines and remedies into a strategy showing scant sign of reform.'"
wow, I thought the law was supposed to protect us, (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, because of how these types of things have been handled (including laws), they have been either way too specific or way too broad. On one hand we have the DCMA that has sweeping implications for tons of different situations. It has done little but allow for more lawsuits from bigger fish against the minnows. I believe its intention was to protect but it ended up making everything so vunerable. On the other hand, we have MS' settlement. They are basically allowed to do what they want based on what they think is best. What the fuck kind of punishment is that? As long as they stay within the narrow constraints placed on them they are good to go. Asked whether the "rule of reason" test would have prevented Microsoft from bundling the browser, the issue at the heart of the Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit, Mr. Ballmer was adamant: "I would still integrate a browser. We would still integrate the Media Player.
While I have reservations about both the browser and the media player being "integrated" (for obvious tin-foil-hat reasons), I am more concerned w/the simple fact that THEY get to decide for themselves what is all right. After all the fucking money that was wasted coming to this fucking "punishment" why don't we have a team of REAL FUCKERS telling MS what to do? Hmm, looks like it is the other way around eh?
And to think, I always believed that the laws were to protect those that could not easily protect themselves.
Re:wow, I thought the law was supposed to protect (Score:5, Interesting)
They have the resources to just drawwwwwwwwwwwwww any legal experience out beyond viability for anyone other than a decent sized business (personally that's why i think that class suite from the US states pretty much folded in their favour anyway).
"You want to sue us? fine, stand there while we smack you about the head with a 2x4 a while first please"
Re:wow, I thought the law was supposed to protect (Score:3, Funny)
We do, they're located here [apple.com], here [kde.org], and here [kernel.org]
Re:wow, I thought the law was supposed to protect (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't have the URL but it was over a year ago that I read how Bill wanted a car imported and that it was sitting at the dock for months and months because he was not supposed to import the car. He hired a bunch of lawyers and they worked with their representative to have a law written up so Bill could get his car. The law was then tied in with some others that were sure to get passed and the whole bunch ended up going through.
Do you really think Bill and Steve care about the law? With Windows and Office, it's all about protecting the monopoly. The Bush administration pulled the rug out from under the last/best effort to even the field. As stated elsewhere, a breakup of Microsoft was the best answer. It'll probably take up to 10 years for Linux and OSS to bash them down to size. Even then, they'll surely start using their billions like the RIAA and start taking any and all OSS projects to court on IP issues.
Maybe it's time the OSS community started holding quartly Pro-Linux events. Ones where we run over boxes of Microsoft software with a steamroller driven by a penguin who's handing out free Linux/OSS CDs. Or maybe David Letterman will drop blocks of cement from a building on Microsoft CDs below...
Then again, offering to schools, free labor and support for switching from Windows to Linux might get better press. But it's not as fun.
LoB
Re:wow, I thought the law was supposed to protect (Score:3, Informative)
The car in question is the Porsche 959. Slashdot pointed to an Autoweek articl [autoweek.com]
Re:wow, I thought the law was supposed to protect (Score:3, Informative)
I don't remember it that way. Here was the the way I remember it. Bill bought
Re:wow, I thought the law was supposed to protect (Score:3, Informative)
To help put this into context, motorcyclists do this all the time, licensing rare imports (a.k.a. "grey-market bikes") and two-strokes or dirt bikes for the street.
Re:wow, I thought the law was supposed to protect (Score:5, Informative)
I highly recommend the article, it's an interesting read and is quite apropros.
Re:wow, I thought the law was supposed to protect (Score:3, Interesting)
No kidding. Right after the primaries were over, I read an article that John Kerry has to play catchup. He ONLY had raised about $100 million for his campaign, and was trailing Bush's $150 million.
That's insane. The dollar amount alone is ludicrous. There are plenty of better ways this country could spend 1/4 billion dollars.
But what's worse is that the "news" media implies that Kerry's big fat wad isn't enough. Sure media companies will be raking in the dou
Re:wow, I thought the law was supposed to protect (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact he went on to say that the ones with incredible amounts on money are the ones that are actually constructing law. Not exactly top secret information, but it still doesn't make me tingly when I hear it again. I don't know about you, but I can't think of anyone who has more money than Microsoft. It's a shame too. The only way to fix this situation, in my opinion is to have a complete reform in both congress and the house in how laws are made. Namely, get all that fucking special interest money out of the picture.
It kills me to think that these assholes that I vote for every year or so would rather take money and make laws to benefit the interests of companies like Microsoft and Disney than work for my interests.
Cringely also had a column on the subject [pbs.org] of Microsoft.
My only question with all of this would be:
What happens when the costs of legal action exceeds sales for an extended period of time? Yeah, they have their cash flow, but that could only last so long. And the more of these law suits get settled out of court, the more of them there are going to be. So it seems logical to me to think that at some point, litigation may kill the beast. Although, it could probably go on for quite some time.
Re:wow, I thought the law was supposed to protect (Score:4, Insightful)
As Jefferson said, the tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Go read your history some time; you'll find that the colonies' beef was not with King George, except insofar as he was the figurehead of the government. The democratically elected Parliament was passing the laws that the colonists opposed. Their opposition was largely based on economic issues, but there were some intrusions by the government into private life, as well (see the amendment regarding the quartering of soldiers.)
Funny, that. A democratically elected body, but one that the revolutionaries felt did not represent them. A series of laws designed to increase the wealth of the already wealthy. Intrusions by the government into private life. Does this sound like ANY government you've heard of recently?
The difference between then and now, of course, is that there is no ocean separating the government and the governed, so I predict no revolution in the USA.
wait until the draft goes back online... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No draft needed, and stop the BS about DU too. (Score:4, Informative)
Of course for your argument you are going to use a reference provided by the military, which will show no toxicity whatsoever. Perhaps the military has a vested interest in showing those results, same as they've denied for years the gulf war syndrome in veterans.
In fact there is research in the toxicity in DU and there exist guidelines for exposure [antenna.nl].
DU is at least as toxic as lead (that much is obvious), with the added problem that unlike lead, Uranium oxidizes very easily upon impact and becomes a fine dust which is breathable. So DU is not very toxic in unexploded ammo, because it is not in dust form. However after use it turns into dust which is quite toxic. Also it can pass into drinking water and become toxic there. As a heavy metal it can concentrate in the body (it is not excreted) and the chemical and radioactive components do have a cumulative effect.
So it somewhat safe to handle but not good for you to visit a battlefield where DU has been used and much less to drink the water there.
Other references: here [csmonitor.com], here [sundayherald.com], or here [newscientist.com] .
Re:wow, I thought the law was supposed to protect (Score:4, Interesting)
Re-read your history. Parliament offered the colonies representation in the British parliament; colonial leaders sympathetic to the radical (dare we say, terrorist?) Sons of Liberty "organization" refused to accept the offer of parliamentry seats. Thus Parliament stuck with the "virtual representation" for the entire Empire. Parliament had to come up with ways to pay off the imperial debt which was mainly incurred by trying to evict the French from North America (Canada) which the British North American colonists bitched about for over a century but were unable to accomplish. It took the power of the British Army and the Royal Navy to beat the French into submission in the 7 Years War (French & Indian War) which ran up the debt. The colonials prospered by removing such a large threat but refused to "pay their fair share." Ever heard that phrase before? Yeah, that was a common phrase used by leprotards like Senator Barbara Boxer in the 1990s running on platforms to "make Japan and Europe pay for their defense" that went nowhere. The people in the Empire that were being overtaxed to pay for the American colonies' defense were the English, the Welsh, the Scottish, and the Irish. The American colonies, even with the dreaded *tea tax* were paying around 1% of their incomes in terms of imperial taxation. Compare that to the end of the American Revolution where the "States" on average raised taxes 15 times what they were in the pre-Revolutionary period. And the British "gave" to the independent United States of America what the colonials bitched about for years; freedom to trade with the rest of the world without British administrative interference. What was the result? Depression. The British Empire turned around and locked the U.S. out of the imperial trade system. The economic consequences of this led to Shay's Rebellion, which is noteworthy because it ushered in the Federal System as a crackdown on such counter-revolutionary activities.
The "quartering of soldiers" is a lie. It did not happen except for Loyalist families who volunteered. Quartering referred to the practice of housing British Army soldiers in the local inns (which the inn keepers loved because it was steady income) and the colonial legislatures were forced to pay the bills since it was a defensive cost. Alarmist colonial leaders objected to keeping a standing army in the colonies since they felt it was counter to English history and their rights as Englishmen, although the British were the ones well aware that the French were itching for revenge and it was only a matter of time until the next colonial war happened.
Re:wow, I thought the law was supposed to protect (Score:3, Interesting)
I read an interesting book called The Culture of Make Believe [derrickjensen.org] that advanced the idea that one way to de-link political power from wealth would be to make the value of every vote inversely proportional to the amount of money the voter has. Which is to say that the more money a person has, the l
Re:wow, I thought the law was supposed to protect (Score:3, Funny)
I didn't think that Real had such a package?
Can't find it on their website. Maybe it is hidden in a similar manner to the free Real Player?
Sorry, you get it wrong (Answer to Troll) (Score:4, Insightful)
When you get to the end of your road you have Facism. When companies reach the point that they effectively have total control over a market the rules change. From your remarks, I would assume that you would consider it a fair game of sport to pit a team of 6 year olds against an adult profesional sports team as long as they followed the same set of rules.
Yes - MS has the right to produce software
No - MS has the right to bundle software together
- Not in an attempt to use their monopoly to leverage another market
Yes - MS has the right to build better software than other companies.- They have the right, they just don't exercise their right. They use their monopoly position to put out poor quality software. The US auto industry as a whole had a monopoly on car sales in the US until the 1970's. They kept putting out poor quality products and complained about loosing sales to foreign manufatures. MS can continue to put out poor quality software
Yes - MS has the right to market its software- As long as marketing is not another term for lying which has been a hallmark of MS. But then again, people who express the kind of ideas you do don't believe that fraud in business is an actionable offence.
Yes - MS has the right to not release its source codeYes - MS has the right to make a profit
- As long as it is made legally. Why did MS not have to pay hefty fines to the SEC last year while other companies did for the same offence?
Yes - MS has the right to not make public its internal protocols, file formats, internal api calls- It then should not market its products as general use.
Yes - MS has the right to change its software from version to version- That is fine. It will make people like it less
No - MS has the right to not make sure that each and every change to its software does not break some non-MS software- Not in an attempt to use their monopoly to leverage another market. When they market some of their software as a general purpose operating systems that other software companies can create applications on they don't have the right
But then again your are just a MICROSOFT TROLL.Which is why fines are not the right solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Which is why fines are not the right solution (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't think fines are the solution, then what do you suggest? Gaol sentances? Might work, but who do you put in gaol?
Re:Which is why fines are not the right solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Which is why fines are not the right solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Which is why fines are not the right solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a novel solution.
Fine Microsoft, sure, but instead of making that fine payable to some country's department of justice, make it payable to a competing company.
Microsoft may not miss $100 million too terribly... but it might not be thrilled about having to fork $100 million over to, say, Red Hat. In other words, replace criminal sanctions with something more closely resembling civil liability.
Rather than distribute the fine among all Microsoft's competitors, which would render it worthless, I'd suggest picking one of its top twenty competitors out of a hat and giving them the whole chunk.
I wonder if that would solve the speeding problem, too... instead of fining you, they could just look up your religious or political affiliation, and force you to fork over $100 to the organization they suspect you would have the most distaste for
Yes, I see some obvious problems with this plan, but forcing Microsoft to pay Apple or Linux companies is still a fun idea to kick around.
Re:Which is why fines are not the right solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Revoke their corporate charter.
Corporations are not people. They are a legal fiction granted by the state for the purpose of shielding investors from liability. This is necessary and proper when a project is so big that investors can't be expected to be responsible for day-to-day operations.
A long time ago, probably when we still spelled jail "gaol", we would revoke a corporation's right to exist if it exceeded its rights as set out in their charter. Then after a bit of judicial activism, corporations became "people". They don't have the right to vote, but have the right to free expression. They can lobby the government that gave them the right to exist to change the laws. And most importantly, we no longer believe we have authority over these creatures.
Many corporations, if the "three strikes and you're out" principles were enforced would be abolished. Corporations routinely get away with murder, or at the very least criminal negligence causing death. I'm not making this stuff, or saying it to be inflammatory. Remember Bhopal? There are many more examples [uneptie.org]. And how about Thalidomide [thalidomide.ca]? Tobacco companies whose executives consistently lied? Often the corporation only gets fined or settles out of court.
Microsoft could probably be split into smaller units with little harm to investors and no layoffs. The only thing that would be sacrificed would be the legal fiction of Microsoft.
The question is, how long will we allow these serially criminal entities to operate unchecked? How long until we recognize that sovereignty means we can re-assert our rights and dissolve them?
Re:Which is why fines are not the right solution (Score:5, Funny)
I think you've just figured out the Slashdot Karma secret. Once you get that karma bonus on all your posts, you're a GOD, I tell you, a GOD!!!
Of course, watch this one get modded down...
Re:Which is why fines are not the right solution (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, Microsoft is only "breaking rules" that no other company software company on the planet has to follow. The rules were made specifically for MS. For example, every other OS on the planet can ship with a web browser and media player without any govt. scrutiny.
Re:Which is why fines are not the right solution (Score:2)
The rules were made specifically for MS. For example, every other OS on the planet can ship with a web browser and media player without any govt. scrutiny.
Um, other companies aren't Microsoft.
Re:Which is why fines are not the right solution (Score:2, Insightful)
When you break the law, you get punished. Those punishments restrict your freedom. Please explain to me the hole in my reasoning.
Three strikes and point systems (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed. In some places there are "three strikes" systems for people who continually commit certain crimes with no intention of reform. Wealthier people also often do the same with dangerous/reckless driving behaviour (in places without point systems), i.e. they keep speeding, and just pay the fines without worrying about it. For traffic offences more and more countries are switching to point systems, which is a good thing - continue to commit certain offences with no intention of reform, and you lose your l
Re:Which is why fines are not the right solution (Score:2, Interesting)
Fines are often too low all-around (Score:5, Funny)
Now, if Microsoft could be made to pay, let's say, in free goods. Imagine if the government could force them, say, to actually GIVE AWAY an internet browser and also a media/sound file player with Windows. That would really show 'em, right?
Re:Fines are often too low all-around (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fines are often too low all-around (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fines are often too low all-around (Score:2)
Re:Fines are often too low all-around (Score:2)
-Lucas
Yah, they got the Nokia boss for speeding:$100,000 (Score:2)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1759791
Re:Fines are often too low all-around (Score:3, Interesting)
It may not be the prevailing opinion around here, but I don't think Microsoft is in the wrong for many of these things. A media player? An Internet browser? Who would want to buy an OS that didn't have many of these features? They might not be the best, and they might not be worth using at all... but having them should not be a crime. If you buy Windows, or M
Re:Fines are often too low all-around (Score:2, Interesting)
When I first left school a number of years ago, I had a temp job for a few months in a local paper mill.
The mill sat on the banks of a local estuary where it pumped out tons of effluent every day. This was all perfectly legal as long as they kept the chemicals and impurities they discharged within certain limits.
I was amazed to find that they were never within t
Re:Fines are often too low all-around (Score:5, Insightful)
So yes, it seems very simple and very nice and on first impression they should let them conduct business as usual, but when you stop to think about it, they're killing companies, stealing technology and then sitting on their ass doing nothing until they have to do it all over again (which is why they fear Open Source, because it's not susceptible to this kind of attack).
Re:Fines are often too low all-around (Score:2, Interesting)
If it was 5% (I know, a high percentgage, just using it for an example) of their gross yearly income, then we're all on equal ground.
Taxes should be the same way. No more brackets, we all pay 28% or something.
Re:Fines are often too low all-around (Score:2)
They would probably do this the same way they can claim a loss on their taxes.
Re:Fines are often too low all-around (Score:2)
Re:Fines are often too low all-around (Score:2)
Re:Fines are often too low all-around (Score:2)
Captain Obvious strikes again (Score:5, Funny)
Captain Obvious has saved the day! Thanks! None of us ever knew this.
Once again... "In other news" (Score:5, Funny)
grass declared green
sky said to be "bluish"
water is often wet
sigh...
Re:Once again... "In other news" (Score:3, Insightful)
In more news today
Grass can be yellow
sky is black at night
Sapphire breaks the myth on the last one
Re:Once again... "In other news" (Score:2)
Re:Once again... "In other news" (Score:2)
Re:Once again... "In other news" (Score:2)
Anyone else notice? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Anyone else notice? (Score:4, Insightful)
Integrating Software (Score:5, Insightful)
Anti-trust law is not supposed to be government or corporate welfare project.
Re:Integrating Software (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there anything that Microsoft has been sued for "illegally integrating" that a Linux distribution or Mac would be caught dead without? Monopoly or no monopoly, a modern OS requires an internet browser and a video player.
A modern OS should not, however, require threats from Microsoft to raise prices to OEMs who bundle alternative browser or media player software with their PCs--which is exactly what Microsoft has been caught doing. And can you name another OS that ships with only one browser?
Re:Integrating Software (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the difference is thus: If you are installing MS Windows you must also install IE, and WMP, and all their other knicknacks. You can't remove them either. That means if an OEM wants to ship a PC with MS Windows on it, they have to ship a PC with IE and WMP on it. At best they can include some other programs as well, but IE and WMP are required to be there. Given that MS Windows has 90% desktop share, that means effectively on any new computer, you have to have IE and WMP installed. That's where leveraging a monopoly (which is the bad part) comes in.
On the other hand, were Linux to even have an effective monopoly, what is getting forced in the install? Does a distro have to install mplayer, or xine, or totem? Is there any requirement that Mozilla, or Firebird, or Konqueror, or Opera, or Galeon or Epiphany be the installed browser? Those choices are up to the distribution - or the OEM if they want to roll their own. Yes, you have to install a media player and a web browser these days on any modern OS install - the question is, do you get to choose which one to install, or are you forced to install some out of necessity?
If Mplayer slid downhill while Totem got th Gstreamer backend going and improved massively is it likely that Distributions might move to having Gstreamer instead of Mplayer? Yes. Would this be hard to do? No.
If Windows Media Player started to lag in development while quicktime, or helixplayer shot ahead, would OEMs be able to install the better media player instead of WMP? No - at best they could install it alongside, and hope that WMP doesn't have some hardcoded stuff that pulls it up for certain actions (hey, IE certainly does!).
What we're saying here is that there is no level playing field for these apps on MS Windows. Were Linux to be in the same position, doing the sort of bundling it does now, which media player, or web browser, or office suite gets bundled would be entirely up for grabs. It's an open market on Linux. On MS Windows it's whatever MS has, plus possibly some competition bundled alongside.
That's a big difference in a competeive market with narrow margins.
Jedidiah.
Re:Integrating Software (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Integrating Software (Score:2, Funny)
You bet. When I start the first pot of coffee, and grab the cream from the fridge in the morning, the first thing which comes to mind is how great it would be if only I could watch a video or surf the web on these appliances.
Re:Integrating Software (Score:3, Interesting)
Do product-tying laws apply to free (as in $) products? That doesn't make sense to me.
(What you're referring to is "product-tying" and certainly wasn't invented by MS. If you have a monopoly, you can use product-tying to effectively 'force' people to buy other products too. So say you're the only guy in town who can sell pens (say, by making special deals and cutbacks for local stationary retailers). People need pens, and now they need to buy them from you. So now you introduce a "special offer" where ever
It's not working (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft, like all other companies, has one duty: To make as big of a profit as possible. It's up to society, and therefore the government, to provide them with economic incentive to be nice and play fair.
Is governments role destroy what it cannot control (Score:5, Insightful)
So whose fault is it that Government is "inequipped" to regulate high-tech? If I was inequipped to teach my son about how to walk, and he tried to do it himself, should I cut him off at the knees?
And is it moral to destroy a company simply because you can't move faster than the marketplace for its products? And if the marketplace moves so quickly to make monopolies, might it not move equally quickly to destroy them?
Re:Is governments role destroy what it cannot cont (Score:2)
There were in this country two very large monopolies. The larger of the two had the following record: the Vietnam War, Watergate, double- digit inflation, fuel and energy shortages, bankrupt airlines, and the 8-cent postcard. The second was responsible for such things as the transistor, the solar cell, lasers, synthetic crystals, high fidelity stereo recording, sound motion pictures, radio astronomy, negative feedback, magnetic tape, magnetic "bubbles"
Re:Is governments role destroy what it cannot cont (Score:3, Insightful)
And is it moral to destroy a company simply because you can't move faster than the marketplace for its products? And if the marketplace moves so quickly to make monopolies, might it not move equally quickly to destroy them?
After they've been warned several times, and convicted of monopolising markets, yes, I believe it is quite moral. It's the only way to regulate a company that defies the law as blatantly as Microsoft does. Consumers have been harmed by Microsoft's strong-arming of OEMs, monopolistic
Re:Is governments role destroy what it cannot cont (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's be serious for a moment. A breakup doesn't mean burning down the redmond campus, executing the manages and raping their wives and daughters. All it means is that the whole company is divided up into smaller companies, not destroyed . Why should the government do this? To protect the marketplace, which MS is abusing through its monopoly status. Legal institutions such as corporations, partnerships and trusts were invented to serve the people, not t
break Microsoft into pieces (Score:2, Insightful)
I just ran Windows Update and now my CD Burning software no longer runs reliably. I have no idea why, but I'm pretty sure that if I was running Microsoft-brand CD burning software, I wouldn't have this problem.
It's sickening to have to constantly update non-Microsoft applications because changes to the OS wreak havoc with all non-Microsoft app
Ironic (Score:5, Interesting)
"If we own the key 'franchises' built on top of the operating system, we dramatically widen the 'moat' that protects the operating system business," Mr. Raikes wrote. "If I owned the most successful daily newspaper in Buffalo, I wouldn't want to leave it to my competitor to own the Sunday edition."
Ironic, because Buffalo has had only one newspaper since the Buffalo Courier-Express [buffalostate.edu] folded in 1982. The only one that is left is the Buffalo News. [buffalonews.com]
There is no competitor to leave the sunday edition to.
And they'll share (Score:2)
Microsoft is looking at it constant court costs and anti-trust fines as simply 'the cost of doing business,'
And they're more than happy to spread that cost around--don't expect the SCO suit to be the end of it.
Attitude Adjustments (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to name a few:
Investors have to realize that pumping money into a company that turns around and puts the money in the bank is ultimately the same as putting their money into their own bank.
Businesses have to realize that the one-supplier solution for IT is as bad as a one-supplier solution for anything else.
The government has to realize that they don't want a company competing with them for control over the masses.
'no intention of changing' (Score:4, Insightful)
This tells me that new steps need to be taken. If fines aren't a deterrent for them, then something else should be imposed.
Re:'no intention of changing' (Score:2)
No teeth to take a bite out of them (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has had the beat us if you can, stop us if you can attitude for some time. You can't blame them for wanting to take over the world...doesn't everyone. The failure here is to successfully demonstrate that in taking over the world they have used dirty tricks to snuff out the competition. Until any settlement hurts them either in the wallet (unlikely) or in their ability to operate as a company (split them up), they will continue with business as usual. Either the laws are outdated/weak, or the cases are flawed - or both
The other problem is that the average non-slashdot computer user probably thinks Microsoft first when they buy software - why? everyone uses it - so it must be the best, and half the time Microsoft is giving it away, whereby the competitor is trying to build/stay in business. Bundling applications/features that drive other companies out of business (regardless of the quality of the programs) hurts everyone but Microsoft. Although I wonder if things were flipped and if Apple had the 90% share would companies/governments/people be suing them for including iPhoto/iTunes/iMovie, etc?
"The Cost Of Doing Business" (Score:2)
This is news? (Score:4, Insightful)
once you get this large, its just factored into the marketing budget.. and they move along, business as usual, unfairly crushing competition, and securing market share for the future to more then make up for the difference.
The ONLY way to stop them is to ban them from selling their products. Repeated fining and hand slapping is useless.
Sitting around stating the obvious over and over gets us nowhere..
List of Companies Microsoft has Crushed? (Score:2, Interesting)
Who can you add?
Re:List of Companies Microsoft has Crushed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:List of Companies Microsoft has Crushed? (Score:2)
I guess we'll get to see if Robertson is correct that Microsoft is really just using the trademark thing to come after his company by their reaction to the product name change. Given their recent absurdity over claim
M$ and the law, not an easy problem (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other had it is important to remember we can have "a law for everything" laws simply reduce freedom and will make a never ending sea of red tape for the next guy that may want to enter that market. Even "protection" laws designed to level the playing field or save lives hist
Not alone (Score:5, Informative)
MS is not alone in this behavior. Large local telephone companies are regulated by the states in which they operate, and many of those states require certain levels of company responsiveness when customers call -- eg, that 95% of calls be answered by a person in less than 30 seconds. Staffing to the necessary level has historically been quite expensive, and the level of fine that the states can impose for non-compliance relatively small. When you have to decide between spending $20M on additional staffing, or pay a $10M fine, the answer is fairly obvious.
I suppose extensive outsourcing to India or the Philipines will change the equation...
The best way to do business with MSFT is not to (Score:2)
LoB
When you have THAT much cash.... (Score:2)
I remember reading somewhere that if Bill Gates drops $100 it isn't worth his time to pick it up (longer than 1.24 seconds).
Re:When you have THAT much cash.... (Score:2)
2 reasons this can't go on (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Settling with Microsoft is fast becoming a viable business model. All you need is to sell software in a market they are unfairly dominating (roll your own mozilla distro for about $0 for example) and a lawer who will take you on no-win-no-fee basis (becoming easier as case law mounts up against Microsoft).
Attention Marans! (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot is nominally the home of libertarian rational actor free information blah blah blah.
How quickly those qualities are put aside when microsoft comes into play!
I can't believe how many threads here continue to bash microsoft and wonder why they haven't changed their ways as if by not changing their ways they are doing something wrong.
The people writing such things are idiots. Microsoft is a for-profit corporation, not a child that can be shamed into submission through dirty looks. It's job is to win minorly inconvenient settlesments while maintaining to the maximum extent possible a dominant market position over the long term.
If you have issues with microsoft's behavioral changes (or lack thereof), then your beef is SQUARELY with regulators and governments who have not done what is in your mind an adequate job of reigning them in. Microsoft is BLAMELESS here. It's doing what it's supposed to and what any company would do. Companies cannot have two masters--they can not credibly both work to make themselves successful and to limit themselves. This MUST be done externally.
Re:Attention Marans! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's think about the whole "corporation as person" mentality in our legal system. The corporation you describe has no higher goal than to do whatever increases its own wealth and power, regardless of the consequences. This includes defying or ignoring regulations that govern the marketplace, buying favorable legislation, and using anticompetitive means to destroy anyone who dares step on its turf.
If a corporation is an entity with legal presence, just like a person, then this person is very much like a class of real people: sociopaths.
We don't allow sociopaths to walk the streets freely; we arrest them and throw them in jail. Why should a corporation be given less scrutiny?
SHAMELESS != BLAMELESS. Please note the distinction.
Re:Attention Marans! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Attention Marans! (Score:3, Insightful)
Riiight. A corporations job is to scr
Does'nt every company do it? (Score:2)
Forget Big companies even smaller ones keep a rreserve fund for bad debts,lawsuits,unexpected losses,bribes(yes,thats right) and other such miscellaneous stuff.And MS knowing that with the way they go trampling smaller companies, lawsuits have become a way of life with them.Just a smart way to earn more money.
Bottom line : I would do it if i were them.
MSFT & The Law (Score:4, Insightful)
Folks, you can change this ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know soemone will reply with talk about how the last election was stolen, etc., but let's get past that and focus on the election that is to come. Negativity and pessamism on this are working in favor of the status quo!
Peace.
Re:Folks, you can change this ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately the USA doesn't have a healthy multi-party democracy which would offer their citizens a far greater choice of parties or even individual independent candidates that more closely match the voter's mix of values and priorities.
The two parties you have are both in big corporations' pocket and pass laws at the convenience of the very wealthy, both are extremely militaristic and jingoistic (compared to most any other democracy; authoritarian states like China and Rus
Relative fines. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you have large quantities of money and can afford infinite legal resources, unlike your competitors, manipulation of the law becomes a regular business process that could even be documented.
The only way that this can be changed is for fines for offences to be relative to the revenue of the company concerned and deliberately hurtful.
It is unlikely that this will occur though as such companies are too valuable to the US economy.
In other words we can't do anything about this - we are held to ransom by such behaviour.
It's like the local Mob Boss (Score:4, Interesting)
Corporate Persons (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple, you freeze them in the spot. No money or supplies go in, no money or products go out. The company is effectively frozen in time, unable to do business.
Now, most of you are probably looking at this going, "But if that happened to MS, the world would screech to a halt!" But isn't that the point others were trying to make? That having a single supplier situation is a Bad Thing. If this happened to a more diverse market, such as auto suppliers for a car rental company, the company could switch to another supplier (I'm making the assumption that if the law were like this, corps would have a sufficient backup plan to put into place).
When the company "returned" to business, they could try and pick up their contracts again, or realize that because of their behavior, their market has dwindled. I think this would work better than a static fine (as evidenced in this case) as well as a percentage fine, since charging a small company $1000 for an infraction can also be seen as a slap on the wrist. (Now, I know that a small company and monopoly tend to be mutually exclusive, but I mean other infractions that corporate entities can commit as well.)
symptom (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello Globe and Mail? This is the BSA calling... (Score:3, Funny)
Why not jail time? (Score:3, Insightful)
Msft isn't doing that directly, but msft is doing exactly that, via scox.
Re:Repeat? (Score:5, Informative)
You mean Robert X. Cringely in "Now the Only Way Microsoft Can Die is by Suicide" [pbs.org]. Yes, and it was discussed on
Re:Don't hate the player, hate the game (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I'm going to define a true patriot as one who loves their country, _and_ will willing make an effort to make it a better place.
If you are a patriot, and you have a brain, then under my definition a patriot would want anti-trust reform. You would want to see M$ wings clipped, so that they play fair, in a fair market economy. That way americans will benefit.
Another patriot is Michael Moore. If you don't realize that, then you don't get patriotism.
Re:duh (Score:2)
The govt. has lots of fighter planes, tanks, lawyer, etc. MS is definitely outmatched and must submit to whatever the govt. decides.
Re:Don't buy MS products. (Score:3, Insightful)
See where I'm going with this? Maybe not b/c you're too busy "sailing the seven seas as a pirate" and basking in your self-righteous justification.
Re:Don't buy MS products. (Score:2)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the thing: Bill Gates isn't a generous philanthropist, just an extremely wealthy one. He's like anyone else who donates fifty bucks a year to the homeless shelter down on Main Street. By that, I don't mean that he gives the same amount, or the same proportion. Instead, I mean that he donates money to these causes after he's already provided for all his own needs and wants.
Remember the parable of the Widow's Mite? The rich man gave from his bounty, while the poor woman gave despite her own need. The person who chooses to feed the hungry rather than feed herself has performed a far more generous act than someone who chooses to feed the hungry rather than... buy Oracle?
In short, the only difference between Bill Gates and everyone else who gives money to charity is that Bill Gates has a whole lot more of it.
Which brings us to the question of how he got that money in the first place. Yay capitalism, right? As your high UID indicates, you're pretty new here. So let me start by disabusing you of the notion that America is a capitalistic country. We have all sorts of impediments to true lassiez-faire capitalism, and that's not always a bad thing. Libertarians may bitch and moan about how much money is being spent on government programs like OSHA, the EPA, the SEC, etc, and they can certainly point to examples of excess and stupidity by any government program. But each of those three agencies arose precisely because true capitalism wasn't providing solutions to important abuses.
We're not a capitalistic country in that we have social programs like welfare. As a country, we've decided that just because pure capitalism would let certain people starve in the streets, that doesn't mean we should let it happen.
Finally, we're non-capitalistic in the sense that we have anticompetitive cartels and monopolies, that cannot be addressed on a consumer level, and have not been addressed by the government. The RIAA, Microsoft, and your local gas company are all monopolies of one sort or another.
The point is, there is a broad spectrum of possibilities between capitalism, anarchy, and communism. America has chosen its spot, while many European countries are camped out closer to the socialism flag.
In closing, here is a quick list of reasons you should have a problem with Microsoft (readers feel free to add):
* 60 billion in the bank, enough to buy up the airline industry.
* A string of anticompetitive acts dating back to the early eighties, leading to two separate taxpayer-funded lawsuits.
* It has been widely rumored that Microsoft is funding SCO's war on Linux.
* Features first, bugfixes later, security wheneverwegetaroundtoit. That has been their strategy for decades, and I have no confidence that this new "security initiative" will have any success.
* Microsoft Outlook.
* Clippy.
* Microsoft is a monopoly. So declares the judicial system. Monopolies stifle innovation and competition.