EU & US Vs. Microsoft

[Ynot]

I was just saying in another thread about the EU rulings on Microsoft, and the fact that MS has been forced (pretty much kicking and screaming) to open up a lot of their specification and implementation data for a variety of MS products, so third party products can talk to them properly Specifically, - details on the OOXML file format (Office 2007), so other office suites can read & write to the MS proprietary format - the Windows server protocols (exchange / active directory / SMB etc.) so Linux clients can properly utilise services provided by Windows servers, and Windows clients can gain the same "functionality" out of Linux servers serving services via Windows protocols Additionally, the ongoing US anti-trust case (which seems to be, at long last, growing some balls and actually doing something other than "monitoring" - maybe as a result of their EU counterparts being so active) has requested that Windows 7 (the next version of Windows, after Vista) be made available to them for review - which they have now got - sources here and here and I was just wondering how all this is affecting MS the big picture, so to speak Not to mention the rather desperate-looking scrabble for Yahoo that MS is currently engaged in MS's total assets (how much money they actually have + amount borrowed + any tied up in long-term investments) sits at US$67.34 billion while their net tangible assets (actual physical assets - cash, property, accounts receivable, etc.) equate to US$22.41 billion (both as at end of last year) http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=MSFT The EU has fined MS twice (so far) for breaching anti-trust regulations total fines to date are €1.68 billion (US$2.57 billion) That's a fine equalling 10% of their tangible assets The EU has a further 2 anti-trust cases in the running, which are yet to be decided. As I said above, the US anti-trust panel seem to have woken up (after years of sitting around "monitoring") I'm not really a financial / business expert (in fact, far from it) but this looks (to me) to be pretty serious for MS

[ninja9578]

I never understood why Microsoft is trying to buy Yahoo!. Yahoo! seems like they never had any intentions, nor do they, in selling to MS. Microsoft's stock is still pretty steady, but I think we're about to see a major drop off, their last couple of big releases have been failures: Vista, Zune, Office 08. None performed as expected and with more and more people switching off of Microsoft products for Open Source or Apple equivalents, I'm expecting a paradigm shift in the computer industry in the next few years. It's about time, prices have been skyrocketing, but now with free software that works just as well if not better they will either drop prices and make major innovations or die.

[Ynot]

I never understood why Microsoft is trying to buy Yahoo!. Yahoo! seems like they never had any intentions, nor do they, in selling to MS. cause MS wants to take on Google and as things stand,they have no hope of doing it without Yahoo's search & advertising clout Google being #1 by a long way (~65&#37 Yahoo being #2 (~20%) Microsoft being #3 (~7%) Ballmer's been quoted as saying (paraphrasing, I'll try and dig up the real quote) "I'll fight Google till my dying breath" He's got a real thing about Google (it's the upstart that slipped though the net, and was allowed to grow) *edit* here we are http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1...9363889,00.htm

[Out of the Blue]

Does anyone think that it's wrong that a company is being forced to reveal tech secrets and code because some people complain about compatibility issues? And also the fact that the company has almost no choice, but to give in to outside pressure because the cost of fighting it would be too high?

[27]

It's hard to have a lot of pity for Microsoft.

[Out of the Blue]

Why? They've revolutionized computing and they're being persecuted for it. I personally don't care for Vista and some other MS items, but the anti-trust claims leveled against them are bogus.

[ninja9578]

Not really, they haven't been responsible for any of the major advancements in the computer industry. Apple made the first largely available PC Xerox created the mouse and GUI (Apple bought it, MS pirated it) Apple shipped the first multitasking computer Apple was the first to implement a hard drive DOS was written by a small company in Seattle (MS bought it) Lotus created the first Office suites Corel created the first modern office suite neXt was first to use object oriented programming neXt prefected cooperative multitasking Xerox invented the ethernet Apple created the first laptop Apple created the fir PDA Sony invented CDs / DVDs Apple revolutionize the media computer Novell invented virus protection IBM invented the tablet Those are most of the major things in computer science.

[Ynot]

The EU Commission sets out various rules and regulations for companies operating inside Europe These regulations are in place to protect the consumer One such set of regulations focuses on abuse of market dominance If you don't like these regulations then don't do business inside Europe it's as simple as that Lifted straight from the EU Commission's Anti-Trust web page http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition...erview_en.html Competition is a basic mechanism of the market economy and encourages companies to provide consumers products that consumers want. It encourages innovation, and pushes down prices. In order to be effective, competition needs suppliers who are independent of each other, each subject to the competitive pressure exerted by the others. The antitrust area covers two prohibition rules set out in the EC Treaty. First, agreements between two or more firms which restrict competition are prohibited by Article 81 of the Treaty, subject to some limited exceptions. This provision covers a wide variety of behaviours. The most obvious example of illegal conduct infringing Article 81 is a cartel between competitors (which may involve price-fixing or market sharing); For more information on cartels see the cartels section. Second, firms in a dominant position may not abuse that position (Article 82 of the EC Treaty). This is for example the case for predatory pricing aiming at eliminating competitors from the market. The Commission is empowered by the Treaty to apply these prohibition rules and enjoys a number of investigative powers to that end (e.g. inspection in business and non business premises, written requests for information, etc). It may also impose fines on undertakings who violate EU antitrust rules. Since 1 May 2004, all national competition authorities are also empowered to apply fully the provisions of the Treaty in order to ensure that competition is not distorted or restricted. National courts may also apply these prohibitions so as to protect the individual rights conferred to citizens by the Treaty. All the cases are publicly viewable so if you're interested, take a look List of all cases, past and present sorted by company name Link points to the 'M's http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition...x/by_cy_m.html

[Out of the Blue]

Lol, "competition...encourages innovation, and pushes down prices", but too much competition is bad. God, the EU's anti-trust legislation is practically as vague as the U.S.'s. Let's propose a hypothetical for "predatory pricing." If we had two bicycle shops in a town, one company selling Bike X for $400 and another company selling Bike X for $375. Company 1 realizes that it would be better for them to lower their prices, so they start selling for $350. Company 2, feeling the pressure from Company 1, cuts their price drastically to $300 selling at a loss, and they present two options to Company 1, they can either try to lower their prices even further, or they can agree to be bought by Company 2 for a generous sum. Company 1 agrees to be purchased by Company 2. Now, would you consider this a Monopoly situation which should be prosecuted Federally? Is this a horribe crime, even though Company 2 now has expanded resources and is offering the consumer an incredibly affordable price. But you say, now Company 2 can afford to jack up their price to higher than before levels, say $450 per bike. The obvious fallacy in this claim is that the market would once again be open to new competitors. The best option for Company 2 would be to use their expanded resources to drop production costs and continue selling the bike at the reduced price, bringing in more customers. In this situation, the bicycle "monopoly" would benefit the consumer with lowered prices and possibly improved bicycles. I would go as far to say that the only harmful monopolies in history have been ones supported by the government.

[wasup]

A monopoly has no reason to drop prices or improve quality. If they have no competitors, than there is no reason to. I don't see how you can possibly think monopolies are GOOD. Competition encourages people to lower prices and improve quality (for the most part).

[Out of the Blue]

The only way a company can maintain a monopoly without Gov't influence is by offering the best product at the lowest price to the most people. Short of actions that are blatatly illegal (fraud, threat of violence, industrial sabotague) a monopoly can only maintain its "power" by giving the consumer what they want. Otherwise it opens the market back up to another company to supply that. And, if a company were to establish a monopoly by dropping its prices; raising their prices again would again, re-open the market.

[Ynot]

there is absolutely no point in arguing about monopoly's Microsoft is a desktop monopoly (~80% market share) as to abusing their position, there's 4 counts documented on the EU site linked above Vague metaphors involving bicycles are irrelevant Again, as said above If you don't like these regulations then don't do business inside Europe it's as simple as that *edit* as to them "revolutionising" computing can you name 1 thing they've invented?

[Out of the Blue]

Alright, no point in arguing about monopolies anymore. And not so much of a metaphor, but an analogy. About Microsoft, wouldn't you say they've had a significant impact? Granted, I don't know too much about the history of Microsoft, but I'd be willing to say that they kick-started the computer-age. I'm not saying they're soley responsible for it, but just that things might have taken longer without them. But, agree to disagree on the subject of Monopolies in a "free" market?

[arby]

The problem with your scenario is that you assume the the company is gonna just sit back and chill as competitors crop up. No, not gonna happen. Google was one of the lucky ones to have slipped through the radar until it was too late and now microsoft is openly slapping itself silly for its mistake and vowing revenge. To keep a monopoly, bigger companies will just eliminate any other company that becomes a threat by buying or choking, simple as that. Then the consumer gets the inflated prices.

[Out of the Blue]

To buy out costs money, there is no infinite supply of money for these corporations to draw from, and buy outs are expensive. To absorb the cost of numerous buy outs or price drops, the corporation needs new customers. Which it can achieve by keeping prices low or offering a higher quality product with resources acquired. Plus, how can you say Microsoft is a Monopoly? Do they have complete "control" of the OS market? Are there alternatives to MS? Yes. Are they affordable? Yes. Do people use them? Yes. Are they as powerful? Yes. Also, the very idea of a company "controlling" a market is laughable. If anyone can control the market, it's either the govenment or it's the consumers. If MS were to spike its next OS to, say $5000 dollars for home edition, would people buy it? Maybe a handful. Would MS be able to wield their market "control"? No.

[Ynot]

Also, the very idea of a company "controlling" a market is laughable. you obviously don't remember IBM ?

[arby]

Also, the very idea of a company "controlling" a market is laughable. If anyone can control the market, it's either the govenment or it's the consumers. If MS were to spike its next OS to, say $5000 dollars for home edition, would people buy it? Maybe a handful. Would MS be able to wield their market "control"? No. Heres the thing: If there was no competition.... Anyone who wanted a new computer would have to. Plus, thats way too high in one jump. Theres a difference between high pricing and just being stupid. The highest jump we're talking about is home edition jumping to $400 or $500. Would people buy that? Yep. If mac didn't exist, would non tech savvy people really have a choice? Nope. If mac couldn't handle the "corperate standard" file types because MS wouldn't share them, would many average working people buy macs? Most wouldn't. So, the monopoly brings in huge money from the overpriced wares, spends a pittance of that on keeping it's dominance and viola! No more free market. The EU rules make sense. MS did business there and didn't obey the rules. Now they're getting buttfucked. And don't keep waving around the "we just won't buy it" card. That only works when alternatives are plentiful. Don't believe me? Take a look at gas.

[Out of the Blue]

Is there anything criminal in charging what people will pay for something? And if we look at the price spike for Vista, I can tell you for certain there are plenty of people sticking with XP because it isn't worth upgrading to get Vista. Let's take a look at gas. First off, we have many sources of gas that could be accessed domestically, but aren't, due to the benevolent government. Also, there are numerous taxes on Gas in our country and especially in places in Europe, part of the reason gas is so expensive. Also, there are numerous subsidies for gas companies in our country, which does nothing but give companies profits they couldn't or wouldn't earn competivile on a free market. Also, due to inflation caused by the Feds and our government policies, gas has become more expensive. In fact, if we were on a Gold Standard, which would provide a stable and solid currency (one that would prevent massive government defecit spending), gas prices would be almost the same as they were decades ago. There are several conditions brought on by the Government which are the reasons for rising gas prices. And you know what? Gas companies won't be able to charge whatever they want. As prices get higher and higher, there is a stonger and stronger push for alternative fuels. We are seeing an increasing market for hybrid and other alternative fuel cars. And, back to MS. One of the reasons the EU is extorting money from the company is because they were charging a liscencing fee for other companies to use coding/information developed by MS. This is the result of research and programming that could have cost millions to create. Does the company not have the right to "sell" the ability for another company to use it? And what right does someone have to say, "Hey, these guys are charging me a lot of money to liscene their software, make them sell it to me for cheaper!" Anti-trust laws were put in place with the intention to "protect the consumer" however laughable they try to do this. So, who should be the one trying to build a case against MS? Who should be the people who are the brutal "victims" of MS's monopolistic polices? Well, the consumer of course. But, who is really behind the anti-trust claims? Companies like Sun Mircosystems that feel threatened by MS and have a hard time matching them. Companies that want the government to step in and restrain the beast of MS so the "little guy" can have a fair chance, regardless of whether or not they can offer a better product than MS. And also, I believe I touched upon this earlier, the Anti-Trust laws of the US and the EU are both incredibly vague. They are so vague, in fact, that a company has no idea whether or not it is in compliance with the laws. They have no way of knowing untill someone decides to lodge a complaint that doesn't neccessarily have to be true. And the trial proceding are not held as one would be held for any other case. The prosecuted is not considered innocent until proven guilty. It is considered guilty and must struggle and fight through costly litigation where it has almost no choice but to try to settle or have to pay millions more in lawyers fees and the like.

[ninja9578]

"one day I was riding on the escalator and I tripped; I feel down the stairs for an hour and a half" - Demetri Martin When did Sun come into this conversation, I doubt that they have much beef with Microsoft. Sun specialized in graphics and networks and they dominate those markets. I think the beef that most people have with Microsoft is that all of their "innovations" haven't been their innovations, they've copied them other places. View my post above.

[Out of the Blue]

Damn, I'd have to find sources Ninja, but Sun, as well as several other corporations, were behind the initial actions taken against MS in the original Anti-trust cases first brought against MS. Oh wait...found the source: John Heilman, Pride Before the Fall (New York: HarperBusiness, 2002). Heh, Mitch Hedberg: I like escalators because they can never go out of order, they can only become stairs. Notice: Escalator temporarily stairs, sorry for the convenience.

[ninja9578]

Huh, I wonder why, Sun has their own monopolies in their own fields. Nobody sets up a large network with Windows

[Out of the Blue]

Well, it was in 1997, with Sun being in cohorts with Novell. Sun and Novell and a few other companies formed the lobying group known as "ProComp" to try and persuade the Justice Department to launch an anti-trust case against MS.

[RedfishBluefish]

I think MS has a greater grip on the OS market than a normal monopoly. and here's why: Assume Windows is installed on most computers. ->Programs written for windows do best, -->so most programs are written for windows, -->so you need windows to run most programs, -->and windows continues to be installed on most computers. ->Additionally, most people learn to use windows, -->so they avoid alternatives because it's too much new to learn, -->and windows continues to be installed on most computers. Now a windows compatible "translation layer" (wine) is being written but that truly takes a fucking long time, and heaps of work.

[Out of the Blue]

So you're saying that a program that is widely used, has a multitude of programs that run on it well, is fairly simple to learn, and is growing is bad?

[Ynot]

So you're saying that a program that is widely used, has a multitude of programs that run on it well, is fairly simple to learn, and is growing is bad? no, bad only comes with sleazy business practices and a deliberate disregard for the law you may have forgotten, see first post for all the details