RSSMixed Antitrust Messages for Microsoft
By Ed Oswald | Published May 15, 2006, 12:26 PM
The Justice Department on Friday gave Microsoft some mixed messages as to compliance with a 2002 antitrust settlement, saying its IE7 search enhancements were not anti-competitive, yet rebuking it for the same foot-dragging policy it has been accused of in the European Union.
As a result of the non-compliance, the Justice Department has asked to extend its oversight and restrictions on the company until 2009, which Microsoft has voluntarily agreed to. At issue, as in Europe, is the quality of technical documentation to be provided to rivals.
In a filing, the government's complaints sounded much like those of the European Commission -- that the company was not completely following the terms of the settlement, and that it was dragging its feet in remedying those issue.
However, Microsoft seems to be using a similar defense as in the EU, promising more than the settlement entails. The company claims that it would allow technical data to be available after the 2009 expiration, as well as licensing access to Windows source code and the opening of a new lab for testing software.
It is unclear if Friday's events would help further the European Commission's case in having its 497 million euro judgment upheld.
Not all was bad in Friday's court filings for Microsoft. The Justice Department rejected claims by rival search engines led by Google, who called the way search is done in Internet Explorer 7 "anti-competitive." The government sided with Microsoft, saying that the defaults were easily changed and the browser respected the users' and manufacturers' search choices.
Typical Microsoft taking advantage of a system that does a half a** job as it accepts the big boys' money with contribution. OK a little simplistic but fairly true.
These are not worthy news though good to see it in the headlilnes. MS still twists the law around as much as it can and the system tries to put up a good face. Yawn yawn boring!
It's a monopoly and it stifled innovations, bottom line.
Score: 0
|...
"an illegal monopoly"
...
Being a monopology ISN'T illegal. Misusing one's
monopoly status, however, ~is~ illegal.
Microsoft got itself into this mess by some of
it's highly aggressive anti-competitive practices.
And, THAT's really the definition of an "illegal
monopoly"... huge marketshare + anti-competitive
practices.
Then -once you're in the system as a violator-
you get subjected to all the little indignities
and petty unfairness bureaucrats can think up !
Microsoft would've been way ahead to have played
by the rules and not tried to take advantage.
But now they're in the system as a violator, and
sort of got to serve their sentence.
...
The Computer Rodent
...
Score: 0
|"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony"
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr...visionmanual/ch2.htm#a1
Yes, it is a felony just to be a monopoly.
Score: 0
|Talk about open ended....
They didn't bother to clear that at all, did they?
Define Monopoly, perhaps? (as it pertains to that specific section of the Sherman Act)
Please tell me they reference a definition of it somewhere in there....
Score: 0
|Laws tend to be open-ended though. At least in some cases.
Score: 0
|fewt - nice quip. Impressive.
I'm assuming that you're significantly aware of case law and regulatory codification that does indeed permit monopoly behavior in the instance of government regulation or lack of competition in a free market...
Score: 0
|Government regulation is what they are doing with the Microsoft case, everyone is complaining but it's better than breaking them up isn't it?
I'm on the fence with this comment, I see benefits either way.
No, I'm not "significantly aware" of case law however history has proven that the court system knows what it's doing. Look at telecoms, how much is a phone in 2006 (~$5 for a cheap one) compared to the 70s (anyone remember rental phones?).
Score: 0
|It leave more opportunities for politicians to line their pockets.
Score: 0
|Sure, what doesn't? ;-)
Score: 0
|So, Daimler-Chrysler owns a commanding share of the mini-van market in the U.S. Do they also have to provide detailed documentation to Ford, GM and Toyota so they can employ things in their mini-vans? Do they even HAVE to provide that to after market companies that make parts or accessories for Caravans? The only "fair" solution would be to require BOTH parties to cross-license each others documentation, but oh no, God forbid we do anything to BOTH sides in this kindergarten spat. Let's punish one side only, because that's the democratic, free-market, capitalist way. Stupid.
Score: 0
|Where was I when Dalmer Chrysler was found guilty of being an illegal monopoly.
Oh, right it's not an illegal monopoly.
Oh, and right they all follow government standards which require specific levels of compatability for things like oh I dunno, gasoline and seatbelts.
I don't see how telling Microsoft to release their compatability papers for Linux and Mac to run on their Gasoline or use their seatbelts is a bad thing.
Then again, I think things through. heh
Score: 0
|When Chrysler programs their mini-vans to run over Toyotas, and gets convicted for it, then your analogy might be something other than just daft.
Score: 0
|I respectfully disagree.
...in *this* case.
Which sucks, becuase it kind of makes me a hypocrite.
While I think Intel should be heavily fined for it's actions in the late 90's / early 2000's, and held back for a few years, I think MS should be allowed to compete on their own merits.
Let me break it down:
If they *force* businesses and resellers to *only* sell their product? Take 'em down.
If they produce and ship a product bundled with other products they've made? Let 'em be.
Competition is great. Let Apple bundle what they want, let MS bundle what they want, and let RedHat bundle what *they* want.
If one of them starts telling Dell that if they ship the other products, they'll increase prices, then take 'em down.
That's where the 'kind of' comes in...
If MS pulls that sh1t, take 'em out. But until then...leave 'em the hell alone and quit yer b****in'.
*shrug*
What it boils down to is that I do not think the 'illegal monopoly', or even 'monopoly' brand should be a permenant fixture on *any* company. It seems hell-bent on doing nothing but unneccesarily limiting them and, in the end, subjecting them to a long torturous death.
Score: 0
|lmao..
Who makes the Hummers? (Seriously, I can't remember..)
They're getting pretty damned close, if ya ask me. ;P
Score: 0
|...
"Who makes the Hummers?"
...
They're a General Motors product.
...
El Raton de los Datos
...
Score: 0
|I dunno, I think that the documentation on compatability should be looked at as a standards document just like this:
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov...ext.asp?section=571.210
That wasn't a standard once upon a time, and think about how many people THAT impacted.
;-)
Score: 0
|Monopoly != illegal. Microsoft has done some things as a monopoly that otherwise would have been legal, but the phrase "illegal monopoly" is misleading in and of itself, as it is NOT illegal to be a monopoly.
Wal-Mart, if I'm not mistaken, is a perfect example of a monopoly. They are not forced to reveal the secrets of their tight supply chain business model, yet they are not sued, or at least not over this. I'm sure there are other examples that I am failing to recall at the moment...
Score: 0
|Read my earlier comment, the one that quotes the Sherman Antitrust act which makes it a felony to be a monopoly.
Score: 0
|I'm not against it when *safety* is involved, but lets face it..
MS and AMD aren't powering your cars....yet.
And even then..I sure as *hell* wouldn't want the architecture 'open'. Lord knows how many freaks would be out there hotwiring cars with their friggin' laptops. (Hell, it's already happening with the keyless fobs)
I'm not against standards and compatibility, but I do *not* think it should be forced. Contrary to popular belief, information only wants to be free if the owner says so. ;)
Score: 0
|...and neglects to define Monopoly.
If there's not more than one vendor of a product, are they a monopoly? Because they ain't the only OS in town....never were.
Or is it because they're the only ones selling Microsoft Windows™? Because the only guys selling Ford Mustangs™ are Ford....
(I apologize profusely for comparing a Mustang to Windows.)
Score: 0
|Great choice of cars to use as an example (I like my car).
heh
Score: 0
|Meh...
Just sick of everyone screaming Monopoly when no-one really seems to even know what one is...
"Wait...it's a board-game, right??"
Score: 0
|Well, until Linux BSD and Mac OS have enough marketshare for the world to decide Microsoft is no longer a monopoly they will be a monopoly.
heh
Score: 0
|Superchips, Predator, Diablo.
They all started somewhere. heh
Score: 0
|"Who makes the Hummers?"
Nintendo plans to release that as a low cost add-on to the wii.
Score: 0
|Sick. Just sick.
I was wondering how lon g it would be before someone dragged that into the gutter.
Score: 0
|So is there a set number? Or does MS actually have to frigging die, first?
If it's purely subjective; subjective to whom?
Score: 0
|Superchips, Predator, Diablo.
Eh?
I know Diablo is a computer game...Predator is a movie (did they make a few games based on that one?)
Never head of superchips.
Now I'm confused... (No worries, though...it's pretty much a natural state for me)
Score: 0
|These are examples of chips modders and racers use to bypass the computer in order to compensate for added performance parts.
IE: Supercharging, Turbos, Increasing injectors intakes and exhaust performance.
Score: 0
|I'm sure its defined somewhere. heh
Score: 0
|You laughed.
heh
Score: 0
|Monopolization has not occurred with Microsoft. Merriam-Webster definitions:
"mo·nop·o·lize: to get a monopoly of : assume complete possession or control of "
"mo·nop·o·ly -
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action (the best definition of monopoly I think most can agree on)
2 : exclusive possession or control (does not apply as there are others that have some control)
3 : a commodity controlled by one party (arguably the one we should use for the definition; the "commodity" is controled solely by Microsoft, but that is vague since we can also say that Novel has completely exclusive control over a commodity known as Netware...)
4 : one that has a monopoly "
So...the very prefix "mono" would imply that monopoly is not majority or even 99% majority--it means one. So is Microsoft a true monopoly? No. Legal monopoly!=a true monopoly.
This is the entire reason that there are so many problems in interpreting the law--there are more than two definitions for most words in the English language. I mean, what even IS a "legal" monopoly? That whole 75% of the market (or whatever percentage) thing does not truly answer the question. All lawyers have to do is pick and choose the definition they see that best makes their case. By my definition, nobody will ever truly be a monopoly as there are almost always other players.
Point? There is no way that me and you can agree on this, fewt, because when I hear the word monopoly I see one thing and you see another. Based on dictionary definitions, we are both right.
Score: 0
|"we are both right"
Hey, look at that. We have come to an agreement on something.
Score: 0
|