Thread: EU & US Vs. Microsoft

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

->Programs written for windows do best

Just using what he said in my argument.

On another note, breaking laws in and of itself isn't bad IMO, you have to look at whether or not the law is constitutional, though obviously there is a different law/legal system in the EU than state-side. And maybe MS should just ditch the EU, except they can still make more profits being persecuted in the EU than not selling anything at all.

I don't know if that made any sense, I'm recovering from a stomach flu at the moment.

Actually I was using "do best" in an evolutionary sense (ie. they "win" - regardless of their quality).

I believe the main problem is Microsoft's monopoly. Why should they bother to make an outstanding OS, if they can just do the minimum, to get people to spend money on an upgrade? (Wait, I basically just quoted what everyone knows about monopolies. Meh.)

I think with Vista, it's clearly more about vendor lock-in than quality. Amusingly, they did such an overhaul that it might end up hurting them overall.

I think MS' high point was Windows 98SE, though I suppose XP SP2 runs decently on modern hardware. Windows Vista kind of reminds me of the first Windows 98 edition. It really is like Star Trek movies: Skip every other (skip early 98 edition, skip ME, skip pre-SP2 XP, etc.)

Vista was about competing with Apple. No debate.

Apple had released 5 operating systems between XP and Vista and all of them were better than XP so Microsoft was getting desperate for a product release.

They weren't finished with all (or any) of the stuff they they had promised in Vista so they slapped together a new interface with the new kernel and packaged it with the XP middle layer and called it Vista.

But the question comes down to, should Mirosoft be punished for offering an OS that people will buy?

Regardless of the "quality", people are buying Windows over other, often cheaper, OS. Have we seen a slow down in the tech industry? Moore's law is still in effect. Innovation is still coming out.

And Microsoft isn't immune from competition, which if they were truely a monopoly, they would. Ninja said it himself, "Microsoft was getting desperate for a product release." They were scared, they couldn't just sit back and rake in the profits they get from "controlling the market." Ultimately, the consumer has final say and final power. Microsoft has to continue producing something worth buying, or Apple, or other companies, will eventually tear it to pieces.

But again, the meat of the matter: Is it the government's responsibility to punish succesfull companies?

It's the government's responsibility to uphold the law, and if laws were broken (or shadily bent) to achieve said success, then yes. We're not talking about punishing success. We're talking about punishing shady business practices, regardless of whether they led to success (in a "units sold/market share" kind of way). Even if a company is a failure, shady business practices should get them further nailed... but of course, you only hear about this happening to the successful, or at least, exposed, companies.

It's the government's responsibility to regular successful companies and to protect small companies from being completely muscled out. Most of Microsoft's "Innovations" have been lifted from other places.

It's obvious when they lift things from Apple because Apple has a huge legal division and technical users tend to use both so "similarities" between OSX and Vista are immediately recognized. Microsoft changes things just enough so that Apple doesn't sue.

Small companies don't have the legal resources of Apple and can't sue if their product gets ripped off. That's the job of the government.

FYI: Moore's law deals with hardware. Software speed is going backwards in almost every aspect.

Ninja: Thank's for the info on Moore's law

There's a difference between monopolies and copyright infringement.

Monopoly does not equal copyright infringement. And Apple can be sued just as easily as Microsoft for (C) problems, but few people call Apple a monopoly on the OS front.

Actually, bringing Apple back into it, there are U.S. anti-trust cases being brought against them too in regards to iTunes and iPod. I mean that shebang is more restrictive than Windows-Windows media player bundles that MS got sued for in the past.

Anyways, this whole argument comes down to a fundamental difference in Economic Market Theory since I threadjacked this post and neither side is going to persuade the other. Some I say pull out the old agree to disagree card and throw some sources eachothers way and let be.

If any of you guys are interested in the side of the table I'm coming from check out this essay by Alan Greenspan. A respected name, I'm sure.

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/06-12-98.html

Ouch !!

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/...ology/msft.php

BRUSSELS: The European Union's competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, delivered an unusually blunt rebuke to Microsoft on Tuesday by recommending that businesses and governments use software based on open standards.

Kroes has fought bitterly with Microsoft over the past four years, accusing the company of defying her orders and fining it nearly €1.7 billion, or $2.7 billion, for violating European competition rules. But her comments were the strongest recommendation yet by Kroes to jettison Microsoft products, which are based on proprietary standards, and to use rival operating systems to run computers.

"I know a smart business decision when I see one - choosing open standards is a very smart business decision indeed," Kroes told a conference in Brussels. "No citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to choose a closed technology over an open one."

Kroes did not name Microsoft in advance copies of her speech, but she made her meaning clear by referring to the only company in EU antitrust enforcement history that has been fined for refusing to comply with European Commission orders - a record held by Microsoft.

"The commission has never before had to issue two periodic penalty payments in a competition case," she said.

The EU has previously ruled against Microsoft for abusing its dominance in the markets for software to play music on computers and to communicate with powerful server computers on a network. In recent months, Kroes has opened new investigations against Microsoft after complaints that it was competing unfairly in the market for Web browsers by using the Explorer software. Kroes is also investigating whether Microsoft is making it too hard for rivals to work with its Office suite applications.

In her speech, Kroes said there were serious security concerns for governments and businesses associated with using a single software supplier. She praised the City of Munich for using software based on open standards, along with the German Foreign Ministry and the Gendarmerie Nationale, a department of the French police force.

Kroes, who is Dutch, encouraged the Dutch government and Parliament to continue moving toward use of open standards. EU agencies "must not rely on one vendor" and "must refuse to become locked into a particular technology - jeopardizing maintenance of full control over the information in its possession," she said.

A policy by the European Commission adopted last year to promote the use of software products that support open standards "needs to be implemented with vigor," she said.

The problem isn't monopolies, the problem is monopolies subsidized by the government in the form of patents. I find it ridiculous that the very institution that makes it possible for intellectual monopolies to exist by handing our patents is now fighting the monster it itself has created.

I'm all for copyright but patents are something completely different. When you're handing our patents for every dim-witted invention you're literally putting the market to a halt. I'm not blaming Microsoft for this, they're just doing their business. They're working within the established system so it's their duty to patent every shitty new feature as if nobody else would be capable of coming up with it.

People are always babbling about how a free market is stupid and how Microsoft is a great example for that. News flash: A free market doesn't include patents.

With a patent you're literally handing out a free ticket to a full-blown monopoly, fully supported by the law. STUPID. NOT CAPITALISM.

Standards, mechanisms, algorithms, technologies etc. all need to be freely available to any entity who seeks to establish a competing service. The implementation and expression of these ideas needs to be subjected to copyright, but that's a whole different story.

Again, this is not about Microsoft, this is about the fact that you can patent the most mundane ideas and literally exclude EVERYONE else from competing with you. It doesn't have anything to do with capitalism.

It's not that the Office formats or the features of Windows are that great that nobody would have come up with them. It's just that you're legally not allowed to compete in these services simply because Microsoft patented these things way before the public ever got to know of them. Again, this isn't Microsofts fault, this is the government subsidizing monopolies.

EDIT: Well, let me acknowledge that some of it is obviously Microsoft just being huge dicks to everyone in the industry... that's true independent of what I've said above.

Patents help the small developer. Because of patents Microsoft can't steal code or inventions from small time people. When they do they get sued for it.

True, but they also help patent trolls. I'd much rather if the government handed out prizes for innovation itself. Inventors invent. They don't sell stuff.
"Stealing code" is a misnomer because all anyone is 'stealing' is a copy of the code. Software patents are particularly stupid, to be giving anyone a monopoly over a certain algorithm.

Whenever I think of Microsoft I think of many many problems. Whenever something breaks around here, I say "There's Microsoft for ya."

Intel also just came under an antitrust suit.

Yeah, in Korea right? Made me groan a good amount.

No, in the US. AMD is heading up the lawsuit.

Ah, I was referring to this:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-behavior.html
-
Eh, that makes me dislike AMD more-so, though they do have some interesting stuff coming down the pipe soon, one would hope. I just think if some sort of "Anti-Trust" suit is going to be brought up, it should be done so by a consumer coalition. Not your competitor who feels they can't compete on the basis of merit alone and need the government to step in.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/37419

EU slaps Microsoft (again) for antitrust over IE bundled with Windows

Opera Software's year-old antitrust complaint against Microsoft took another step toward being vindicated today, and the Oslo-based browser maker is applauding the European Commission's decision. Opera had filed a complaint with the EC contending that Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows violated antitrust rules. Yesterday, the EC sent a "Statement of Objections (SO)" to Microsoft outlining a preliminary finding that bundling IE with Windows does indeed infringe on "the EC Treaty rules on abuse of a dominant position (Article 82),"according to a press release issued today by the EC.

Interestingly, Microsoft Subnet had only last week been asking the folks at Opera if they had any news on this complaint, which was filed in December, 2007. A representative of Opera sent Microsoft Subnet this written statement, hot off the presses. From our point of view, Opera can't help crowing just a little.

“On behalf of all Internet users, we commend the Commission for taking the next step towards
restoring competition in a market that Microsoft has strangled for more than a decade. The
Commission’s Statement of Objections demonstrates that the Commission is serious about getting
Microsoft to start competing on the merits in the browser market and letting consumers have a real
choice of internet browsers,” says Jon von Tetzchner, Chief Executive Officer, Opera Software.

“The Court of First Instance’s judgment was clear that Microsoft illegally tied Media Player to
Windows. We are not surprised that the Commission has issued a Statement of Objections based on
the principles in that judgment. We are confident that the Commission will ultimately conclude that
Microsoft has violated European competition law again and that it will take all necessary actions to
restore competition and consumer choice in this important market,” says Jason Hoida, Deputy
General Counsel, Opera Software.

Microsoft has eight weeks to reply the SO. It will then have the right to be heard in an Oral Hearing. If the preliminary findings are confirmed, the Commission may impose a fine on Microsoft (one of its favorite things to do), require Microsoft to cease the abuse (which seems more effective than a fine and a turn-of-the-head to see no more). It could impose other remedies if it feels they are necessary to restore consumer choice.

This new slap from the EC comes almost a year and half after the judgment of the European Court
of First Instance that confirmed the European Commission's 2004 decision that Microsoft had illegally
tied Windows Media Player to Windows. A Statement of Objections is a formal step in an EC antitrust investigation in which the EC informs the parties in writing of the objections raised against them. The defending party can then set out all the facts to defend itself or request an oral hearing.

Microsoft issued a statement that acknowledged it received this missive from the EC and that it has about two months to respond.

IE sucks so bad. I'm using Chrome and Safari when I'm on windows at work.

I don't think that they have much of a browser stranglehold. Almost every PC user installs iTunes and Safari usually come with iTunes. Google is the most popular search engine and people know that they make a browser.

AHAHAHA!!!!!

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/245994/e...h-windows.html

The European Commission could force Microsoft to bundle Firefox with future versions of Windows.

The revelation came as part of Microsoft's quarterly filing with the Security and Exchange Commission. Among the statements is a clause outlining the penalties being considered by the European watchdog, which recently ruled that Microsoft is harming competition by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows.

The most interesting situation outlined in the filing would see either Microsoft or computer manufacturers forced to install Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari by default alongside Internet Explorer on new Windows-based PCs.

"While computer users and OEMs are already free to run any web browsing software on Windows, the Commission is considering ordering Microsoft and OEMs to obligate users to choose a particular browser when setting up a new PC," the company reports in the filing.

"Such a remedy might include a requirement that OEMs distribute multiple browsers on new Windows-based PCs. We may also be required to disable certain unspecified Internet Explorer software code if a user chooses a competing browser."

Non-compliance would see the EU impose a "significant fine based on sales of Windows operating systems in the European Union", the filing further notes.

Microsoft has two months to respond to the charges, after which the EC will make its final ruling on the matter. The software company can also request a hearing and says it's considering this alternative.

Should Microsoft be charged, the penalty could come into effect in time for the release of Windows 7, which is expected either later this year, or early 2010.

Originally Posted by Ynot

AHAHAHA!!!!!

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/245994/e...h-windows.html

=O

hehe...

I'm starting to love those guys

I don't think that they should be forced to include other browsers, most people know about firefox and safari. chrome needs some attention, it's far better than either safari or firefox.

Chrome, better than Firefox? No. Faster, yes, but not better. Not by a long shot. I believe it still has issues with Flash, one of the supposed main features it's supposed to support. The scrolling seems to magically fixed itself, on my install at least, but the privacy policy is ridiculous. As of now, as far as I know, it has no real expandability (though I'm not saying that is a bad thing, necessarily).

Better is very much a subjective term. Personally, I'll stick to Firefox. It's ability to add on web development tools, at the very least, is an insanely useful feature that I use daily. As I said, it's subjective. For someone who has no need or want of any bells and/or whistles, Chrome is perfect.

That said, since the majority of Windows users probably fall into that category—no need or want of bells and whistles in a web browser—Chrome would probably be the perfect bundled minimalist web browser software.

I meant faster and more secure. It's got firefox' networking system and Safari's rendering system. It's lightning fast. It's multiprocess tabs make it secure and stable, far more so than firefox. I only use chrome at work.