Microsoft hit with a $613 million fine by EU

[GreenGhost]

MS lawyers are great. They were able to distract everybody from the central issues of those 2000? 'findings,' which was having the development of the OS and other software under the same roof. That was evident, and crucial for the establishment of IE 5.0 as the only browser anyone would need.

I think we would be better off with 2 Microsofts. What are the real benefits or improvements of the Windows/Office systems during the past 4-5 years?

Practically nothing. Just a bunch of fixes and minor improvements. They have all the time and money to mine other people's business with software that keep all the business at home. 90% of users do not need to buy anything else, if they have Windows and Office. When MS comes out with a virus scanner, then it's going to be fun again.

 

[Homerboy]

<FONT face=Verdana>You have a forbidden word in your message post. Please click the back button in your browser and remove this word from your post. The words that are forbidden are highlighted for you.

RE:Microsoft hit with a $613 million fine by EU </FONT>

Originally posted by: GreenGhost
MS lawyers are great. They were able to distract everybody from the central issues of those 2000? 'findings,' which was having the development of the OS and other software under the same roof. That was evident, and crucial for the est@blishment of IE 5.0 as the only browser anyone would need. I think we would be better off with 2 Microsofts. What are the real benefits or improvements of the Windows/Office systems during the past 4-5 years? Practically nothing. Just a bunch of fixes and minor improvements. They have all the time and money to mine other people's business with software that keep all the business at home. 90% of users do not need to buy anything else, if they have Windows and Office. When MS comes out with a virus scanner, then it's going to be fun again.

I agree that with 2 MS's we'd all be better off... I dont think anyone is arguing that. I think we can all agree we COULD have had 2 super powers if Apple would have made the right moves at the right time(s). Virus Scanner is in the works for MS I thought and so is their st@b at Google. Did anyone read that Google article in WIRED a month or 2 back? Was fantastic... Its going to be MS vs Google soon it seems... bring it on!

Edit: I cant post st@b??!?!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: fumbduck
Apple is complaining that Windows XP includes the Windows Media Player, and that is unfair to Apple Quicktime. Are you telling me that none of the Apple OS's include Quicktime?

See that is the argument I dont get "Hey you cant include IE with Window OS because thats unfair to Netscape!!" Well WTF... then Netscape should make a OS and include their browser with it...

Hmmm I thought of a suit I could pull off using that above theory.
I really like the way the Dodge Viper looks... but thats unfair that Dodge puts THEIR motor in the chasis. What if I want a Viper body and a Chevy motor?!? Thats totally unfair Im going to sue Dodge now... BBIAB.

I see NO difference in those 2 examples. Anyone help me?

dodge doesn't hold a monopoly in the relevant market

 

[Homerboy]

dodge doesn't hold a monopoly in the relevant market

Nor does MS:

mo·nop·o·ly
<I>n.</I> <I>pl.</I> mo·nop·o·lies

1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: ?Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals? (Milton Friedman).
2. <I>Law.</I> A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
3. 
   
   <OL type=a>
   
   <LI type=a>A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
   
   <LI type=a>A commodity or service so controlled.
   <OL type=a>
   
   <LI type=a>Exclusive possession or control: <CITE>arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.</CITE>
   
   <LI type=a>Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: <CITE>showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.</CITE>
   
   last I checked I could buy an Apple or *NIX or *BSD etc box correct?
   
   
   Edit: Gah lotta extra crap there

[/list]

 

[jurzdevil]

Originally posted by: Anubis
[Nelsom] NA NA [/Nelson]

[Nelson]HA HA[/Nelson]

 

[SunnyD]

The crux of all of these cases isn't even the fact that Microsoft holds a monopoly on the OS market people.

The crux is Microsoft's anti-competitive behaviour, which is the problem. Sure, MS violates most every anti-trust/monopoly law out there, but noone has stepped up to the plate yet with a competing product. Microsoft can't be blamed for that. However, in taking the time to develope competing technologies and incorporate them directly into their OS product, and essentially force people to use it (WMP versus RealPlayer, IE versus Nutscrape, Firewall/AV versus McAfee/Symmantec, et'al), they are STIFFLING COMPETETION, and forcing other companies into remiss.

THAT is the problem. They fact that they are using extremely anti-competitive behaviour to secure a monopoly on their product - THAT is why they get their ass kicked around now.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Hammer
i'd like to see us slap a reciprocal fine on some european company.

Softwood lumber not enough for ya?

I don't see what the big deal is, the US did this to MS a while ago itself.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Homerboy

dodge doesn't hold a monopoly in the relevant market

Nor does MS:

<STRONG>mo·nop·o·ly</strong> <I>n.</I> <I>pl.</I> <STRONG>mo·nop·o·lies </strong>

1. <STRONG>Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: ?Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals? (Milton Friedman). </strong>
2. <STRONG><I>Law.</I> A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party. </strong>
3. 
   
   <OL type=a>
   
   <LI type=a><STRONG>A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity. </strong>
   
   <LI type=a><STRONG>A commodity or service so controlled. </strong></li>
   <OL type=a>
   
   <LI type=a><STRONG>Exclusive possession or control: <CITE>arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.</CITE> </strong>
   
   <LI type=a><STRONG>Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: <CITE>showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.</CITE> last I checked I could buy an Apple or *NIX or *BSD etc box correct?
   
   
   </strong>Edit: Gah lotta extra crap there
   </li>

[/list]

The key idea is NEAR monopoly.

 

[MrDudeMan]

lol if i was in control of MS, i would take my losses and just say fvck you. they will make more than enough if they just stay within the US. i would LOVE to see the rest of the world get crippled if MS turned off all of its servers to everything outside of the US. that would certainly provide entertainment.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: silverpig

The key idea is NEAR monopoly.

so are you going to sue me if we nearly get in an accident? riiiiight.

 

[Homerboy]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
The crux of all of these cases isn't even the fact that Microsoft holds a monopoly on the OS market people. The crux is Microsoft's anti-competitive behaviour, which is the problem. Sure, MS violates most every anti-trust/monopoly law out there, but noone has stepped up to the plate yet with a competing product. Microsoft can't be blamed for that. However, in taking the time to develope competing technologies and incorporate them directly into their OS product, and essentially force people to use it (WMP versus RealPlayer, IE versus Nutscrape, Firewall/AV versus McAfee/Symmantec, et'al), they are STIFFLING COMPETETION, and forcing other companies into remiss. THAT is the problem. They fact that they are using extremely anti-competitive behaviour to secure a monopoly on their product - THAT is why they get their ass kicked around now.

Agreed on every point (and Im really just playing devils advocate here... like I said in an earlier post, Id LOVE for 2 "MSs" competing)

However, why dont all these competitors then come out with a whiz-bang OS that crushes MS (*NIX is on the right track) and they can then incorporate their own <!--StartFragment -->proprietary media player, browser, AV et'al.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Homerboy
Agreed on every point (and Im really just playing devils advocate here... like I said in an earlier post, Id LOVE for 2 "MSs" competing)

However, why dont all these competitors then come out with a whiz-bang OS that crushes MS (*NIX is on the right track) and they can then incorporate their own <!--StartFragment -->proprietary media player, browser, AV et'al.

The problem is that every application developer has been locked into Microsoft for years, making Microsoft ubiquitous and proven. If an upstart comes in and all of a sudden wants to play ball, the developers now have to develope the same product for TWO (or more) operating systems, which in turn costs the developers far more money and resources cutting their profits down.

By the way - hasn't that been tried? I believe the names OS/2 and BeOS come to mind.

 

[0roo0roo]

of course the bastard eu is going after ms, ms isn't one of their own. just protectionist policy. their software developers can't cut it is all. i guess ms shouldn't bundle a calculator either then huh? cars shouldn't have radios built in. heaters? oh come on, thats bundling giving the consumer more for their money isn't wrong. where's the stupid bush administration on this? no retaliatory strikes? pathetic.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
lol if i was in control of MS, i would take my losses and just say fvck you. they will make more than enough if they just stay within the US. i would LOVE to see the rest of the world get crippled if MS turned off all of its servers to everything outside of the US. that would certainly provide entertainment.

The rest of the world would be forced to run other software, StarOffice, Linux, BSD's, Apple, etc etc.
Sun, IBM, Novell, etc el would be happy to provide the support/distribution.

Microsoft would still have to honor their support contracts, and after their products are made extinct in the rest of the world, MS would either have to work on their compatibility with other products, or be screwed.
A major advantage for MS is that they can afford to intentionally make their products incompatible with competing products, Word docs, Exchange Server, Windows in general, etc, forcing the competition to play follow the leader.

If the competition were to reach a critical mass, say for example of China was embrace Apple, Linux, or something else, Microsoft would have to make sure their products could play with that competing product, or risk losing more business because MS's customers in the US can't work efficently with their own customers in China.

Right now, MS's dominance comes not so much from Windows, as it does from the products surrounding Windows, Office more than any other.
There are viable options as far as operating systems go, but since 95% of the corporate world uses Office, compatibility is a must for those alternatives.

 

[dfi]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
of course the bastard eu is going after ms, ms isn't one of their own. just protectionist policy. their software developers can't cut it is all. i guess ms shouldn't bundle a calculator either then huh? cars shouldn't have radios built in. heaters? oh come on, thats bundling giving the consumer more for their money isn't wrong. where's the stupid bush administration on this? no retaliatory strikes? pathetic.

I think it is good to give consumers more for their money. But I do believe that you can get a car with just basic am/fm if you so choose. If you wanted to take out the radio, you can. Also, an A/C system is an integral part of the internal design of the vehicle; an attempt to install an aftermarket A/C system where the internal design of the car didn't permit once would probably be very expensive.

However, it is impossible for you to take out windows media player or messenger, which are non-integral parts of an OS. Yet, microsoft office, which is probably used more widely than messenger or maybe even windows media player, is not bundled for free. Why is that?

The reason, I believe, is because there isn't a large future market that can be created by dominating the desktop office suite application. It is, in and of itself, the only market available, and thus MS will sell their product. But there are viable future markets that can be gained by giving away windows media player and messenger. And MS is in an unique position to leverage their large consumer base. Already, MS is using wmp9 to help propogate its DRM technology. Where will the music industry want to see DRM eventually?? In the home entertainment market, where MS also wants to go. Messenger is used in an attempt to drive traffic to MS's venture online with hotmail and their own content driven portal, to help against their biggest competitor, Yahoo.

The question is this: is MS a natural monopoly? Will any OS eventually need to bundle all the features that MS has in their OS in order to make a good product? Maybe. People mainly use their computers to browse the net, for wordprocessing, and as an all purpose media machine. However, when on the net, people also use search engines and post on forums. Should a search engine and an incorporated posting system that allows you to post to MS forum software be incorporated into the next MS OS? People also use email. Should MS automatically create an email account for you on their hotmail service when you use their OS, and then have Outlook automatically check the account each time you start an MS OS? People also shop when online. Should the next MS OS come with integrated shopping software that directs you to purchase products from the MS online store? Or maybe automatically directs you to a lower price at the MS online store whenever you search for a product? You don't have to use it, you just can't uninstall it. I'm sure people will find all these features useful. Does that mean it's ok for MS to do the above? I think you can take bundling so far before you become (very) anti-competitive, and somewhere someone has to draw a line in the sand.

Btw, if MS is really planning on including a search engine in their next OS, I have to say that is really crossing the line. With WMP there is at least some gray area. But a search engine in an OS? That is completely unnecessary and serves to help them compete against Yahoo and Google.

dfi

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Homerboy

dodge doesn't hold a monopoly in the relevant market

Nor does MS:

what other company competes with them in such a way that MS has to change prices in the desktop operating system market?

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
The crux of all of these cases isn't even the fact that Microsoft holds a monopoly on the OS market people.

The crux is Microsoft's anti-competitive behaviour, which is the problem. Sure, MS violates most every anti-trust/monopoly law out there, but noone has stepped up to the plate yet with a competing product. Microsoft can't be blamed for that. However, in taking the time to develope competing technologies and incorporate them directly into their OS product, and essentially force people to use it (WMP versus RealPlayer, IE versus Nutscrape, Firewall/AV versus McAfee/Symmantec, et'al), they are STIFFLING COMPETETION, and forcing other companies into remiss.

THAT is the problem. They fact that they are using extremely anti-competitive behaviour to secure a monopoly on their product - THAT is why they get their ass kicked around now.

Forcing to people to use it? Now I've heard it all.

You might have a point if the OS didn't let you install certain programs.

 

[przero]

They built a better mousetrap and now everyone wants to punish them for it. Let EU use Linux!