Do you think Microsoft is breaking anti-trust laws? why or why not?

[Nemesis77]

<<

<< Imagine propietary extensions in one browser not supported in others. Now imagine that company making a widely used web page that can only be seen on that browser. Insert IE and MSN.com here and you have reality. >>

I don't understand this comment, I use Netscape only and I use MSN.com on occasion. I've never had problems or errors. Is there part of that site that I'm missing out on? >>



MS altered MSN a while ago to block access from alternative browser. IE had access, so did Netscape 6.x. that's it. Opera, Mozilla, Konqueror, NS 4.7x etc. were blocked. MS claimed it was because those other browsers "didn't follow standards". What makes that comment funny is that:

1. Opera is propably THE most standards-compliant browser there is!
2. If I told Konqueror to tell the MSN-website that it was in fact IE on Windows (Konqueror has that ability), and not Konqueror on Linux, MSN-website works flawlessly. Browser doesn't change the way it renders the web-pages, only thing different is that the website thought the broswer was IE on Windows.

What does that mean? It means that there was NO technical reason to block other browsers! the second point also shows that the reason why some browsers were blocked were becauser they weren't IE (not that it would change the way the website works because it worked flawlessly on Konqueror when I told it to lie to the website) and they ran on alternative platform. Only reason they were blocked was because MS wanted to make the lives harder for people who used alternative browsers. When users found out, there was alot of noise, so MS "fixed" the website and it works now.

EDIT: typos, missing words.

 

[flawedecision]

By definition Microsoft is not a monopoly.

The argument regarding application integration into their OS falls flat when you look at the linux distros like red hat, mandrake, etc. Fire up kde up lately with one of these distros? Enough applications to do just about everything, and they are right there accessible from the desktop.

And why shouldn't microsoft put internet explorer in their own operating system? The notion that they should somehow include netscape, or not include internet explorer if netscape is not included, is simply absurd. This is their operating system. If Sun can create a desktop OS as attractive as win2k then by all means, they can put netscape 15.0 smack dab on the desktop.

It isn't microsoft's job to make netscape work better with windows. It isn't microsoft's job to include 3rd party software within its operating system.

Microsoft has done well with the free market structure and as a result they have quite a large userbase. Some will argue that these users are often not given a choice...

www.freebsd.com
www.redhat.com
www.mandrake.com
www.sourceforge.com

and guess what? It's all free.

Microsoft is not a monopoly.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< The argument regarding application integration into their OS falls flat when you look at the linux distros like red hat, mandrake, etc. Fire up kde up lately with one of these distros? Enough applications to do just about everything, and they are right there accessible from the desktop. >>



Well, there are differences between MS and Linux-distros.

The apps in Linux distro are not made by that distributor. SuSE uses KDE as default. But SuSE does not sell KDE, KDE is made (for free) by KDE-team. And of course, there are several other desktops to choose from. There might be word-processors there. None of which are made bu SuSE. All the apps in linux-distro are made by a third-party, the distributos isn't pushing their products. Only things the distributor does is the installer and configuration-utilities.

And of course, Linux is not a monopoly. And none of the distributors have monopoly in the Linux OS-market.



<< And why shouldn't microsoft put internet explorer in their own operating system? >>



Because it's a separate application. Operating system is a different thing than browser. Browser is application. OS is OS. If MS bundles their browser in to their OS, they are using their monpoly of the desktop to push their unrealted application. And that is illegal



<< It isn't microsoft's job to make netscape work better with windows. >>



MS isn't allowed to sabotage their rivals software either. They did it with DR-DOS, I wouldn't be surprised if they are doing it today. They certainly have been doing it with their websites (the MSN-incident I mentioned)




<< It isn't microsoft's job to include 3rd party software within its operating system. >>



No, that would be the job of the OEM. Unfortunately MS severly limits their ability to do so. Just recently MS forbid OEM's to add icon to AOL to the desktops of their computer (because AOL competes with MSN).



<< Microsoft is not a monopoly. >>



Yes it is. Just about every computer sold ships with Windows. 90+% market-share is in practice monopoly. And courts agreed. So you are wrong.

 

[flawedecision]

Well, there are differences between MS and Linux-distros.

The apps in Linux distro are not made by that distributor. SuSE uses KDE as default. But SuSE does not sell KDE, KDE is made (for free) by KDE-team. And of course, there are several other desktops to choose from. There might be word-processors there. None of which are made bu SuSE. All the apps in linux-distro are made by a third-party, the distributos isn't pushing their products. Only things the distributor does is the installer and configuration-utilities.

And of course, Linux is not a monopoly. And none of the distributors have monopoly in the Linux OS-market.

Red hat and mandrake include plenty of their own applications to make the distros better within the distros. Sure there are 3rd party applications that will do some of the things theirs will do. For example the red hat network monitor. However, it is their distribution so they have every legal right to include their own application.


Because it's a separate application. Operating system is a different thing than browser. Browser is application. OS is OS. If MS bundles their browser in to their OS, they are using their monpoly of the desktop to push their unrealted application. And that is illegal

While you are propogating sarcasm you are ignoring reality. The law does not designate a difference between an operating system and an application. The law doesn't care. You are arguing an entirely new case against microsoft right now... one the justice department thankfully wasn't foolish enough to pursue.



No, that would be the job of the OEM. Unfortunately MS severly limits their ability to do so. Just recently MS forbid OEM's to add icon to AOL to the desktops of their computer (because AOL competes with MSN).

I see here your problem isn't with microsoft, but with free market competition in general. The OEMs do not make windows. Microsoft does. Therefore, the OEMs have the option to buy or not to buy microsoft products. If they are unhappy with the product limitations including licensing agreements then they can install linux onto all of their desktops.



Yes it is. Just about every computer sold ships with Windows. 90+% market-share is in practice monopoly. And courts agreed. So you are wrong.

One judge who by his own claim had never even used email felt this way. The court of appeals felt his bias overwhelmed his decision. Nearly every reputable economist in this country agrees with this current administration that the pursuit of microsoft is not in the best interest for the consumer and there is plenty of room for competition.

Write your own operating system that is better than ms windows and sell it to the public. Nobody is preventing you from doing this.

 

[LAUST]

<<

<< and as far as IE being included... So TF what... when you buy a Nissan from the dealership do you want it to come with a GM interior? not going to happen, IE is part of the package, the new age is on the web, so with their OS you get their access to the web also. live with it.

So as far as Monopoly and the IE issue those are what I see >>



What if you wanted to buy a Nissan, but with Nissan you would also have to get 3 ton pile of old newspapers? You could not buy a Nissan without getting those newspapers as well. That's how it is with Windows. You can't get it without IE. And like I have in previous threads: browsing the web is NOT a function os an OS, it's a job of separate application called "Browser". What MS is doing is to use their dominance of the desktop (Windows) to push their unrelated application (browser). Leveraging your monopoly to push your other products is illegal, therefore MS has broken the law. End of story. >>


Yeah right dude, open a BROWSER and type c:\ in the address field, it will bring up your systems HD, bring up my computer and put in an HTTP address, the Broswer IS part of the OS, it's not a bunch of newspapers as your Ouija board is telling you, it's more of a transmission in today's world

Edit
Yes it is. Just about every computer sold ships with Windows. 90+% market-share is in practice monopoly. And courts agreed. So you are wrong.

Guess you havent placed an order with Sun ever have you? Buy a Sun you get Solaris....oops

 

[Nemesis77]

<< Yeah right dude, open a BROWSER and type c:\ in the address field, it will bring up your systems HD, bring up my computer and put in an HTTP address, the Broswer IS part of the OS, it's not a bunch of newspapers as your Ouija board is telling you, it's more of a transmission in today's world >>



So? Explorer and Internet Explorer share some things. But it's artificial. First Win95 didn't have IE integrated, and Explorer (the filemanager) worked like it's supposed to.

The job of OS is to manage the resources of the computer. Everything else is done by separate application. Including websurfing. If OS is same as browser and vice versa, why does MS treat IE as separate? You can get it for other OS'es, they upgrade it independently from the rest of the OS. Why can't I upgrade Solitaire or Notepad? Why does IE have separate version-number from the rest of the OS (you are not using IE W2K, but 6.0)? Because it's a separate application called Internet Explorer.



<< Guess you havent placed an order with Sun ever have you? Buy a Sun you get Solaris....oops >>



If I buy Sun server, it comes with Sun OS. So? If I hate Solaris, I can always buy a server from Suns competitor (news flash: Sun is not a monopoly!) If I buy Apple it comes with MacOS. What's your point? Apple isn't monopoly either. That would be the same if you comlained that Palm always comes with PalmOS. And it's compeletely unrelated to MS.

What Sun and Apple sells is a whole package, consisting of hardware and software. Part of that package is their OS. Sun or Apple doesn't have monopoly. When you buy a PS, you don't buy "Microsoft PC", it's not a "whole package" in the same sense as Sun-server or Mac is. I'm having problemsn putting my thoughts to words here. It would be the same if you complained that all Cisco routers comes with IOS. It's completely unrelated. I'm not complaining that all Xboxes ship with stripped down W2K-kernels: It's completely unrelated!.

Apple and Sun are hardware manufacturers with some software that makes up the product they sell. MS is a software-maker that sells it's software to third-parties (OEM's, companies, consumers). If apple had monopoly, you might have a reason to complain. But it has about 5% market-share.

 

[Lankin]

<< I have been wondering why there aren't more softwre that would install on multiple OS'es. >>



Ummm HELLLOOOO, anyone HOME?

Why? Developers/Software Publishers, do not see the point of the extra development time. Linux will never take off. Why? The developers don't see the point of developing for it(the VAST majority) because it has no market share. It has no market share because it lacks developer support.

 

[Lankin]

Ummm HELLLOOO AGAIN



<< No, that would be the job of the OEM. Unfortunately MS severly limits their ability to do so. Just recently MS forbid OEM's to add icon to AOL to the desktops of their computer (because AOL competes with MSN). >>




Well DUH, AOL(and the other ISP's paid to have their software installed on the OS), AOL and MS's relationship broke down, so MS says no to it. And its not because of MSN, its because AOL turned against MS, trying for what they thought would be "easy money'. They still allow AT&T, Prodigiy and several others. Hell its ZERO loss to the consumer that they prevent AOL being added to the desktop.

 

[flawedecision]

Nemesis,

A question you need to answer, that the Clinton administration failed to, is whether or not we are worse off because of Microsoft.

The second question is, would consumers benefit from a break up of microsoft.



I believe we are better off as a result of microsoft's capitalistic enginuity. Excel, Visio, Windows 2000, Internet Explorer. These are excellent creations. To argue that we would be better off without them is to argue that it only took a single nation to defeat Napoleon.

Nothing good will come from government intervention in the software industry. Do you want government regulation? Do you want granted monopolies? Because that is the alternative. Company A is allowed to write browser software, company B can design operating systems... company C can provide broadband. Company D can write CD burning software... Qwest can sell phone service in location A, verizon in location B, baby bell 1 in location C, etc., etc., etc.

I don't want this. And I don't see why anyone would.

 

<< This may be a bad response, But I dont think any business should get in trouble for being smart. Seriously people have a choice, use windows or don't, use explorer or don't >>



It is a bad response. The way they wrote licensing agreements with resellers was a strong arm tactic. Definatly stifling competition.

 

[LAUST]

<<

<< Yeah right dude, open a BROWSER and type c:\ in the address field, it will bring up your systems HD, bring up my computer and put in an HTTP address, the Broswer IS part of the OS, it's not a bunch of newspapers as your Ouija board is telling you, it's more of a transmission in today's world >>



So? Explorer and Internet Explorer share some things. But it's artificial. First Win95 didn't have IE integrated, and Explorer (the filemanager) worked like it's supposed to.

The job of OS is to manage the resources of the computer. Everything else is done by separate application. Including websurfing. If OS is same as browser and vice versa, why does MS treat IE as separate? You can get it for other OS'es, they upgrade it independently from the rest of the OS. Why can't I upgrade Solitaire or Notepad? Why does IE have separate version-number from the rest of the OS (you are not using IE W2K, but 6.0)? Because it's a separate application called Internet Explorer.



<< Guess you havent placed an order with Sun ever have you? Buy a Sun you get Solaris....oops >>



If I buy Sun server, it comes with Sun OS. So? If I hate Solaris, I can always buy a server from Suns competitor (news flash: Sun is not a monopoly!) If I buy Apple it comes with MacOS. What's your point? Apple isn't monopoly either. That would be the same if you comlained that Palm always comes with PalmOS. And it's compeletely unrelated to MS.

What Sun and Apple sells is a whole package, consisting of hardware and software. Part of that package is their OS. Sun or Apple doesn't have monopoly. When you buy a PS, you don't buy "Microsoft PC", it's not a "whole package" in the same sense as Sun-server or Mac is. I'm having problemsn putting my thoughts to words here. It would be the same if you complained that all Cisco routers comes with IOS. It's completely unrelated. I'm not complaining that all Xboxes ship with stripped down W2K-kernels: It's completely unrelated!.

Apple and Sun are hardware manufacturers with some software that makes up the product they sell. MS is a software-maker that sells it's software to third-parties (OEM's, companies, consumers). If apple had monopoly, you might have a reason to complain. But it has about 5% market-share. >>


Nice contradictions, So you can go buy a MAC or a Sun system or even an X86 and run things like Linux or BSD?... good, thanks for the info and the statement of MS is not a monopoly, QWest is an example of a monopoly, read the post and get it figured out.

 

[DSTA]

>>?... good, thanks for the info and the statement of MS is not a monopoly, QWest is an example of a monopoly, read the post and get it figured out.

Call it what you will, but MS have been using their market position to leverage their distribution advantage gained from supplying 90% or more of desktops with Windows OS. The development of IE, Mediaplayer, Media Encoder, DRM, Passport costs a lot of money, yet these products are given away for free - and it's certainly not to secure the market share of the windows OS. I don't know if the defacto elimination of Real.com and Netscape are benificial for consumers.

 

[Ornery]

Microsoft Argues Its Case
By James V. Grimaldi and Carrie Johnson, Washington Post Staff Writers, February 26, 2001

• "Chief Judge Harry Edwards noted what he called one of the ironies of the government's case: that Microsoft was found to have used its monopoly power to prevent Netscape Communications Corp. from itself developing enough following for its product to become a dominant player in the marketplace. Edwards asked whether antitrust laws were meant to permit a new monopoly to replace an old monopoly.
  
  When faced with the threat of a powerful new technology, such as Netscape's invention of a web browser, "What are they supposed to do?" Edwards asked. "It might be a monopoly to monopoly [competition] in these dynamic markets. What are they allowed to do?"
  
  ...Key to Microsoft's argument is that Netscape was not foreclosed from distributing its product and that it was able to give 160 million copies to consumers in 1998. Unless, Microsoft argues, the company is prevented by Microsoft from distributing its product, it hasn't violated antitrust law in the case."

Damn, how can anybody see Netscape as anything but a bunch of whiners? Explain to me how a little company like Intuos can kick Microsoft's ass in the Personal Finance category? They're still competing just fine today! What does Symantec know that Netscape doesn't? How about Macromedia and their host of awesome programs?

Bah! Bunch of whining losers make me sick! :frown:

 

[gopunk]

wow this thread is long....

i'll just post my feelings about this...

are they a monopoly?
of course not, you'd have to be an idiot to think that.

are they breaking any laws?
maybe, i really don't know.

microsoft is bad: they stifle competition!
bad? i don't think so, i can think of no companies that actually encourage competition. every company tries to stifle it in one way or another. this does not make them bad, it is natural.


i'll be honest, not much of what microsoft did strikes me as particularly heinous. i'm sure if you worked for a rival company, it would seem very heinous, but to me, it doesn't. windows is their product. they can do whatever the hell they want with it. perhaps the only thing that i see as possibly wrong was that dual boot thing. because that's the only thing that really has nothing to do with windows. all the other stuff - low pricing, bundling software, etc... they should be allowed to do imho. it's their software for christ's sake! would you force sony to either not bundle headphones with their cd players, or bundle aiwa's too, to be fair? no, that is retarded.

 

[Bluga]

As much i hate M$:







NO.

 

[DSTA]

Damn, how can anybody see Netscape as anything but a bunch of whiners? Explain to me how a little company like Intuos can kick Microsoft's ass in the Personal Finance category? They're still competing just fine today! What does Symantec know that Netscape doesn't? How about Macromedia and their host of awesome programs?

Don't forget Adobe.

Difference with these is that they have well established products in niche markets. It's a bit difficult and expensive to break into these, so MS have not bothered (even dropped the MS Money line) because there is no money to be made. If a product from that league is interesting, they just buy the company (cf Visio).

The next big battle is going to be on the DRM arena, and sure enough XP is pre loaded with all that is required to take over digital media distribution. Same advantage as with IE.

And speaking of open source alternatives: have you tried buying a computer (not DIY) without a Windows OS? It's almost impossible, and with the state of the economy as it is you won't see the hardware vendors angrying MS. I know of two German brands trying (Waibel and Vobis), and they have not been treated kindly by MS.

 

[anonymouschris]

you guys are awesome. all responses have been read and carefully considered. keep them coming

 

[rommel]

yes and cuz they can...apparently we are too busy chasin beloved patriot for anyone to give a f*ck

 

[LAUST]

If you guys think MS is JUST supposed to be an OS company and thats ALL, well, guess you get to write down something you learned, some have known this for awhile so don't start a new thread on it, you'll get a big REPOST

 

[Nemesis77]

<< Ummm HELLLOOOO, anyone HOME?

Why? Developers/Software Publishers, do not see the point of the extra development time. Linux will never take off. Why? The developers don't see the point of developing for it(the VAST majority) because it has no market share. It has no market share because it lacks developer support. >>



There are toolkits that are cross-platform. Qt from Trolltech for example. It runs on Win, Linux and Mac. The example I mentioned (Hancom Office) is made with it.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< Nemesis,

A question you need to answer, that the Clinton administration failed to, is whether or not we are worse off because of Microsoft. >>



Worse. Arguments below.



<< The second question is, would consumers benefit from a break up of microsoft. >>



Well, break-up is not on the table anymore... But I think yes. Breaking MS up would limits it's abilities to push it's products by using profits from other businesses. For example: MS used three times as much (if I remember correctly) money to advertise MSN as Yahoo did for it's site. Yahoo can't afford more, MS can, because it can use it's vast income from it's monopoly-businesses to push MSN. How can anyone compete against that? Yahoo could spend millions, MS could spend billions.



<< I believe we are better off as a result of microsoft's capitalistic enginuity. Excel, Visio, Windows 2000, Internet Explorer. These are excellent creations. To argue that we would be better off without them is to argue that it only took a single nation to defeat Napoleon. >>



Where did I say that MS products should be removed from the market? They are good enough for most people. But right now you have very limited choice, only viable choice is MS-product. And that is NOT a good thing. Having several products competing in the market-place only benefits the consumer, since it increases the speed of developement (as demonstrated recently by Sony's Xbox-comments ("We need to increase the speed of PS3-developement because of Xbox")) and it lowers the cost. Right now that is not happening because MS has no competition. MS has INSANE profit-margin.

"Cost: Consumers have watched the price of personal computers fall dramatically in recent years. A fully capable PC can now be bought for around $600. Every component of the PC - memory, chip, hard drive, monitor - has become significantly more functional at a fraction of the price. That is, every component except Microsoft's software operating system. In fact, Microsoft acknowledges it has not lowered the price of its operating system in years. Instead of cutting prices for consumers, Microsoft is pocketing a monopoly profit margin of 31 percent - an unheard of amount in a competitive industry. The average profit margin for the S&P 500 is only 7 percent."

Source

Comparison: The profit-baby Intel had a profit-margin of 23.1% in 1998. Alot lower than MS's.

This might also be of interest.



<< Nothing good will come from government intervention in the software industry. >>



Nothing good can come from having for-profit corporation having monopoly in one of the most important businesses in the world.



<< Do you want government regulation? >>



I want COMPETITION. If it takes a government to restore competition after MS has crushed it's competitors, I'm all for it. Unfortunately that's not happening.



<< Do you want granted monopolies? Because that is the alternative. Company A is allowed to write browser software, company B can design operating systems... company C can provide broadband. Company D can write CD burning software...

I don't want this. And I don't see why anyone would. >>



What are you talking about? This has NEVER been the alternative! The idea has been to increase COMPETITION. I'll repeat that: COMPETITION. Meaning: having several vendors compete in the market-place, using price and features to get customers. Right now that is not happening.

I find it really surprising that people who consider themselves to be true capitalists have no problems living under monopoly. Competition is what capitalism is about, and right now there is no competition. Competition is GOOD. That has been repeated over and over again.

 

[LAUST]

But then from your posts you've never experienced them your just talking out of jealousy, you ever edit an OS/@ configsys?

 

[StormRider]

Bill Gates is my god and he can do no wrong.

For the first time a fellow nerd/geek has power in this world and all the former jocks and prom kings are just jealous of him.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< So you've been in computers what, 2 years... >>



Started when I was 6 years old. That means I have been using computers for 18 years now



<< Mac, Solaris and it's for X86 too, BSD, Linux, BeOS, OS/2, Novell, Pick, PC-DOS, DR-DOS. C'mon dude there was and is plenty of competition. How is it it's MS's fault theirs doesn't suck. >>



Those OS'es are currently in the niche-market (well, BSD and Linux have good share of servers). The fact remains that MS has 90+% market-share, and that is a monopoly. They don't have to worry about competition in the desktop.



<< But then from your posts you've never experienced them your just talking out of jealousy, you ever edit an OS/@ configsys?

<<

I assume you are talking about OS/2. Nope, never used it. Besides, it's obsolete now.



<< the file is over 100 lines of CRAP oh sorry you don't edit it... you E it, BTW another POS. Making LINUX Network friendly is a POS also... >>



What are you talking about? Linux has been network-aware from the moment it was born. You could say that is was born IN the network! Just because you are used to nice point 'n click interface doesn't mean that Linux is difficult. It's DIFFERENT. And today there are nice graphical network-configuration tools in Linux. Usually the installer asks the setting during install. And of course, you can change them later. It's NOT difficult.



<< Maybe if your COMPETITION WOULD STEP TO THE FUGGIN PLATE IT WOULD BE WORTH SOMETHING....YES Competition is good, But they charge $120 for their latest OS... >>



It seems like you are losing it. I'm having problems understanding your text. Competition asks for 120$ for their OS? Ummm... I got Linux free from the net. Or you could get SuSE Linux Professional for 79.99 (of course, you could install it on as many computers as you wish). Or if you don't need all the advanced server and developement software, you could get the personal version for 49.95. That's hardly 120$



<< I see GAMES okay can you read this through your UNOPEN mind... GAMES BOY.. GAMES, sell for $54.99 your gonna tell me the work that goes into a GAME rivals an OS... PLEASE... your 3 strikes are done and the tomato's have flown... stop your B!tchin >>



You seem annoyed. Did you run out of arguments so you decided to try mindless shouting instead? What does games have to do with this? Games are not OS'es. Sorry, you lose.

And still the fact remains that MS is a convicted monopolist. Nothing you say is going to change that fact. They are a monopoly, and they have been abusing that monopoly.

 

[LAUST]

Delete