Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Tiara on December 22, 2004, 10:02:59 am
-
http://computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,98362,00.html?from=homeheads
Microsoft was ordered to release a version of its Windows operating system in Europe without its Windows Media Player, and reveal enough server software code to allow rivals to build competing products that work well with Windows. It also levied a fine of $658 million, which Microsoft has already paid; the sum is being held in a special account pending the appeal's outcome.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Linux + full windows compatability = ownage! ;7
-
Incidentally, because of changes in the exchange rate over the length MS' (failed) appeal, the dollar value of the fine has went from $600m initially to $668m.
-
Europe does indeed rock.
-
Not that I like Microsoft, I don't, but I don't see what the right the government has to force you to exclude certain features from your own product and release your own software code to competitors.
What happened to free enterprise?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Not that I like Microsoft, I don't, but I don't see what the right the government has to force you to exclude certain features from your own product and release your own software code to competitors.
What happened to free enterprise?
I believe removing monopolistic practices is considered a key part of allowing free enterprise and fair trade.
-
Europe is turning more and more socialist, bud :p
Anywho, I want linux with windows compatability... I'd switch in a heartbeat if it was there. Wine sucks.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
...
oh, my God, Lord Ashcroft got ahold of 'eh, he's nothing more than a shadow of a shell of the man he once was :(
-
no he just saw the light
-
Monopolies are just another type of market share - I personally don't object to them in principle.
However, on this occassion... heh
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Not that I like Microsoft, I don't, but I don't see what the right the government has to force you to exclude certain features from your own product and release your own software code to competitors.
What happened to free enterprise?
You're not allowed to leverage a monoploy in one market to achieve dominance in another. If you don't prevent this sort of thing you'd end up with one omnicorp owning everything.
Where's the free enterprise in that?
-
Along the same lines as Rictor, why should a court be able to prevent Microsoft from including its own media player (freely available for download, and easily uninstalled) on its own OS? I mean, I'm no Microsoft fanboy, but why should a private company have to take steps allowing its competitors to gain an advantage over it? Whatever happened to "laissez-faire"? I see it this way: if you want to use another company's media player, it's on you to make the switch, not on Microsoft to stop promotion of its own product. As for the other companies, if they can't hack it, let them go bankrupt.
-
I am sorry but this is so gay. I do not see any wrong doing by microsoft. What have they done. managed to achieve a majority of the market share? What anti-competitive actions have they taken? I don't like microshaft. But unless they have perpetrated grievous anti-trust violations I don't see an issue. All I see is a over-zealous and corrupt organization that is annoyed by the power microsoft has. Although, I will be frank, AMD got a legup in a situation like this.
Also, these people are dolts. All microsoft has to do is to come out with a new version of server ASAP. But then again I am sure some fags are going to see that as anti competitive as well.
-
Look at what MS did to the browser market with IE.
It took years for that to recover. During which there was no innovation whatsoever. That's why monopolies are bad. They remove competition and prevent creativity.
-
There are 2 main issues;
Firstly, the inclusion of Media Player acts to damage consumer choice; restricting the consumer from having any choice in which media player they have initally installed on their PC. Imagine if, for example, MS bundled a free copy of Office with Windows - what would that do to the likes of Lotus (or whoever owns them now)?
Secondly, the refusal of MS to release certain API / interface details to allow software/hardware manufacturers to develop compatible products with windows (or at least easily develop them); in the latter case this effectively monopolizes who can develop software for windows PCs (windows being a virtual monopoly already), and hands control of that to MS.
It's the latter you should focus on.
-
It's a balance thing - If you extrapolate it to the point where MS bundled everything and the kitchen sink with their OS, it would kill off almost everyone and they would indeed become an all encompasing omni-corp with the world at it's mercy.
Of course, this is slightly bunk, because people aren't FORCED to use things like MediaPlayer and IE, they just do because they are too lazy/thick.
IE has a stranglehold on the market, yes, but it got this way because Netscape was crap.
Before then, it was Netscape that had a monopoly on webbrowsers but nobody *****ed about them - It was only after MS went and made a better browser (IE1&2 died miserably, IE3 'tho, that kicked NS3's ass) that they got killed off.
Of course, they stupidly sat on their laurels after their Embrace&Extend killing tactics, and IE is now in danger of being killed off by FF, but that's the way of things ;)
While mostly applauded, I can see this decision it causing problems because it sets a dangerous precedent - Cut it another way and extrapolate that, and you could have commercial compiler companies getting an injuction against GCC -
"It's not fair, them bundling a free compiler with their distro, it is an unfair competitive practice!"
And then we can get silly: Most of you (the deluded XP users anyways :P) probably like the transparent Zip File access - It's handy and neat, but what if PK/WinZip called them out for it?
Or better yet, the EditPad/UltraEdit people calling MS out over Notepad? Where does it end?
We can only hope that the judges can make informed and sensibly balanced solutions about such things.
...
Damn, we're ****ed aren't we?
-
europe rules! :D
i dont like microsoft's tendency to make an "operating system" do everything. all an operating system needs to do is operate the phucking system. i think of ald versions of mac os, supported multitasking, networking, and managed my files. whole system fit on a single floppy disk. why windows uses up a gigabyte of space i dont know.
-
Originally posted by Cyker
It's a balance thing - If you extrapolate it to the point where MS bundled everything and the kitchen sink with their OS, it would kill off almost everyone and they would indeed become an all encompasing omni-corp with the world at it's mercy.
But, cut it another way and you could have commercial compiler companies getting an injuction against GCC -
"It's not fair, them bundling a free compiler with their distro, it is an unfair competitive practice!"
While mostly applauded, I can see it causing problems - For instance, most of you (the deluded XP users anyways :P) probably like the transparent ZipFile access - It's handy and neat, but what if PK/WinZip called them out for it?
Or better yet, the EditPad/UltraEdit people calling MS out over Notepad? Where does it end?
We can only hope that the judges can make informed and sensibly balanced solutions about such things.
...
Well we're ****ed aren't we?
The worst possible consequence would be a barebones OS where the bonus components were downloadable. Which might not be a particularly bad thing for windows, given the amount of tat contained within it.
-
No, the worst possible consequence is where Linux distros cannot exist anymore because you aren't allowed to bundle anything with them.
Be careful when you support anything like this because it can cut both ways...
As Microsoft can attest, as they are now finding this out with regard to Patents :evil grin:
-
Maybe, an option to install media player or not install media player. But see from a common sense standpoint Windows is thier intellectual property. Why the heck should they disclose facts about the operating system. They give out development packages, use those. And frankly, nothing is preventing others from installing a different media program. It is their browser, their OS, their media player. Why they hell can't they bundle it. This is my real problem with modern day enforcement of Anti trust law. They are not going after companies for vertical or horizontal monopolies. Now it is in the name of "consumer protection" and what not. I am sorry I don't feel threatened by MS. maybe a little annoyed at times.
-
I must say I wish they were forced to decouple IE, WMP, Explorer etc. so they were not so tightly tied into the OS 'tho...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The worst possible consequence would be a barebones OS where the bonus components were downloadable. Which might not be a particularly bad thing for windows, given the amount of tat contained within it.
Not everyone has super leet connections, or connections at all.
A better option would make it so XP install ASKED if u wanted to install all these extra components, so that the user was still the person making a choice, and no longer forced to have these things.
-
As other people stated, monopolies are bad for free trade. When a company like Microsoft bundles it's components (and basiclly doesnt let you remove them, they will not only have a monopoly on the OS, but also on the other various crappy programs. At least in the economic sense. This would almost cripple the other major developer groups in these areas.
But the fact is that monopolies are illigal. Therefor I find this ruling completely legit and agreeable.
-
microsoft has no respect for our hard drive space or our proccessor cycles.
-
The issue with Windows binary compatibility is mainly with graphics and other APIs. It's unlikely MS would be required to release that (that's not "server software").
Additionally it's unlikely that they'd release the code under a license that would be compatible with open source projects.
Anyway, I don't really care all that much about the whole media player issue. However MS should be dealt with when it's actually monopolizing. Like the mysterious issues I've heard about with Office 2k3 and Openoffice compatibility or IE being very difficult to remove.
-
Originally posted by Krackers87
Not everyone has super leet connections, or connections at all.
A better option would make it so XP install ASKED if u wanted to install all these extra components, so that the user was still the person making a choice, and no longer forced to have these things.
Better option than that would be to allow a choice of components to install; for example, IE, Netscape, Opera or Firefox as browser.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Not that I like Microsoft, I don't, but I don't see what the right the government has to force you to exclude certain features from your own product and release your own software code to competitors.
What happened to free enterprise?
Yes they can when you're the defacto monopoly. And so they should. Its called government regulation and its a flawed but sometimes effective counter-balance to the sometimes extreme forces of the corporate world.
My opinion: the US government lacks the guts for government regulation and seriously needs to get into it more than it is. Its not like they don't regulate...but they need to work on how involved they get. Its one of those things, you need to balance it making sure the business doesn't get destroyed but also protecting the consumer and the citizens of the country.
-
monopolies are not illegal. The use of market power to fix prices, crush competition and such is. A monopoly gained through sheer superior product is not illegal.
As for a choice....people don't really care. But if they did getting a different media player is as easy as downloading one.
And frankly, the path of regulation is the road to serfdum.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
monopolies are not illegal.
They are. the Sherman Act and the Clayton act (the former clearifies the latter), states that monopolies, other then natural monopolies, are illigal as per the anti-trust laws.
And in England, the parliment decided they were illegal since ~1624 :p (Not sure if this descision was ever reversed though)
-
Originally posted by redmenace
A monopoly gained through sheer superior product is not illegal.
That clearly is not the case here. :D
-
Originally posted by Tiara
They are. the Sherman Act and the Clayton act (the former clearifies the latter), states that monopolies, other then natural monopolies, are illigal as per the anti-trust laws.
And in England, the parliment decided they were illegal since ~1624 :p (Not sure if this descision was ever reversed though)
I just spent the entire semester learning about business law. It is also per se violations. The Sherman Act section 2 involving monopolization has 2 main requirements, intent and possesion. I was partly mistaken. But there are exceptions.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
monopolies are not illegal. The use of market power to fix prices, crush competition and such is. A monopoly gained through sheer superior product is not illegal.
As for a choice....people don't really care. But if they did getting a different media player is as easy as downloading one.
And frankly, the path of regulation is the road to serfdum.
you are aware were talking about microsoft, and that the product in question is windows? i think this man is insane, call the men in white coats!
although microsoft is the reaon firefox, winamp and simmilar apps are all free. my problem is i want to buy an operating system. when i buy an operatihng system thats all i want to pay for. i dont want to pay for medeia players and web browsers, i can get thse for free. integration between the os and theese aps makes the whole thing slower, and paints a big bulseye for microsoft hating hackers. we all know microsoft doesnt make quality products at all. yet microsoft software tends to cost 4 times as much as non microsoft software. microsoft needs to spend less money on marketing and more on development. i want microsoft to develop an effietient oerating system that doesnt try to do anything more than operate the system.
-
I think there's some inconsistency about the definition of an "operating system". In modular *nix based "operating systems" often included are a kernel, system applications, windowing server (optional), and desktop/WM software (optional). However it's still an operating system if it just has a kernel and some applications.
When someone says "just an operating system" what do they mean? I mean, would you want a Windows that when taken out of the box only has a command prompt?
-
"laissez-faire"?
For the most part, only the US is stupid enough to blindly worship that principle.
And you obviously have no idea just how anti-competetive M$ really is. They make it so that M$'s support site will not work properly with Firefox, only IE (I have tried this personally). They also will not allow some types of files to be downloaded from hotmail with Firefox. They also rigged the MSN page so it will not display properly on Opera browsers (that was a few years ago, IIRC). Need I go on?
I'm sure exactly why the EU went after their media player, but based on some of the other stunts M$ decided to pull I'm sure they had their reasons. The only reason why the US terminated it's anti-monopoly suit against M$ is because M$ bought the Bush administration.
-
Well as for a definition you are correct. What microsoft is selling is the basis for a home computing package short of an office suite, which they also offer for a huge fee.
As for being nuts, well.....I was only making some statements of facts, which I then clarified.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
I just spent the entire semester learning about business law. It is also per se violations. The Sherman Act section 2 involving monopolization has 2 main requirements, intent and possesion. I was partly mistaken. But there are exceptions.
Microsoft does not fall under those exceptions. Microsoft created a barrier for other developers and producers and thus shows intent. Possesion, well, that speaks for it's own. Every time a company gets close to threatening Microsoft they'll either buy it or run it into the ground. Microsoft is aiming for an illegal monopoly.
In Europe, monopolizing a corner or the market like this is also illegal.