[Krackers87]

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.

[Tiara]

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.

[Nuke]

microsoft has no respect for our hard drive space or our proccessor cycles.

[Kamikaze]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[IceFire]

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.

[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.

[Tiara]

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 (Not sure if this descision was ever reversed though)

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by redmenace
A monopoly gained through sheer superior product is not illegal.

That clearly is not the case here.

[redmenace]

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 (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.

[Nuke]

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.

[Kamikaze]

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?

[Kosh]

"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.

[redmenace]

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.

[Tiara]

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.