Some sponsor might need money



  • @ammoQ said:

    I'm sorry to be that harsh, but this is complete bullshit. /snip/

    Imagine what happened if there were no such laws. MS could, for example, buy AMD and make the next version of Windows so that it runs better on Athlons than on Intel CPUs. A few years later, Intel is out of the market. MS could - like apple - build it's own PCs and push Dell, HP, Acer, Lenovo etc. out of the market. Obviously not desirable.

    I'm sorry to be harsh, but this is complete bullshit. <g> Apple could, for example, buy Motorola and make the next version of OSX so that it runs better on those processors than on Intel CPUs. A few years later, Intel is out of the market. Oops! I think that strategy has already been tried, hasn't it? How did that work out for Apple?



  • @KenW said:

    @ammoQ said:

    I'm sorry to be that harsh, but this is complete bullshit. /snip/

    Imagine what happened if there were no such laws. MS could, for example, buy AMD and make the next version of Windows so that it runs better on Athlons than on Intel CPUs. A few years later, Intel is out of the market. MS could - like apple - build it's own PCs and push Dell, HP, Acer, Lenovo etc. out of the market. Obviously not desirable.

    I'm sorry to be harsh, but this is complete bullshit. <g> Apple could, for example, buy Motorola and make the next version of OSX so that it runs better on those processors than on Intel CPUs. A few years later, Intel is out of the market. Oops! I think that strategy has already been tried, hasn't it? How did that work out for Apple?

    Apple:

    1. Does not and never has owned any company which produced CPUs that their systems used.
    2. Does not have a monopoly. In fact, they’re pretty much the opposite of a monopoly: one of the bit players in a market where a monopoly exists , whose existence does not affect the other company's status of being legally considered a monopoly



  • I suppose that you are also favour of legalising theft of undesirable items and murder of undesirable people.The law as it currently stands does not work that way. The value of the victim is not considered when determining whether a crime has been committed.

    I don't think anyone's questioning antitrust law. I'm questioning the fact that this situation was considered an antitrust violation in the first place, since the problem with the competing software is it's quality, and not the fact that it's in the same market as Microsoft. Your analogy to muder/theft is completely inadequate for the case.



  • @asuffield said:

    Still not getting it. It's not a monopoly abuse to ship a tool. It is a monopoly abuse to deliberately and maliciously destroy the business of another company by exploiting your monopoly. Microsoft were not convicted of shipping Media Player, they were convicted of deliberately attacking Apple and RealNetworks.

    This is a rather bizarre thread. It's like a serial murderer has been going around stabbing dozens of people, and you guys are all screaming about how his rights were infringed - after all, it's not illegal to own a knife, and the courts are being oppressive for taking his knife away from him.

    Has somebody been handing out some bad crack?

    So that means that Yugo should have been found guilty of monopolistic behavior by the EU because they were directly attacking Ford and Chevy? Same logic, right? They launched a competitive campaign, didn't they? Same difference. And the same results for Yugo as Real and Apple got - they produced crappy quality products and didn't win.

    And who got stabbed? I didn't see any blood, nobody died to my knowledge.

    Another failed argument, I'm afraid.
     



  • @ammoQ said:

    Many people don't know that any other operating system but Windows even exists.

    So MS does better advertising and has a larger user base (and therefore more word of mouth influence). So what?

    @ammoQ said:


    Most PCs come with Windows pre-installed. Most Consumers do not actively decide to use Windows. They simply keep what they got.

    So computer vendors and manufacturers choose Windows. Again, so what?

    @ammoQ said:


    Many people must use Windows, because they need to use some software that is only available for Windows.

    So more software developers support Windows? Yet again, so what?

    @ammoQ said:


    Windows is not successful because it is inherently better than, say, Linux or OS/X.

    Yes, it is. It's more user friendly, has been around longer than OSX, has more application support, is getting as secure (although I agree it's not quite there yet).
     

    @ammoQ said:

    If people were confident in the quality of Windows and were actively deciding to use it, you should expect that a lot more people buy the boxed version of Vista. Currently, it looks like Vista is mostly sold along with new PCs. And still a lot of people choose XP over Vista, despite all the problems that Vista is supposed to fix.

    Bull. Vista isn't selling in the boxed version because that's not how the majority of people buy their operating systems. They buy them when they buy a new computer, because the OS has hardware requirements that their old machine may not meet. So they wait until they buy a new machine, and buy the OS that the computer manufacturer recommends for that machine.

    When RedHat boxes started showing up on the shelves at Best Buy a few years ago (don't know if they're still there now, and don't care), you didn't see a big flood of people running out to buy them, did you? Using your thought processes, doesn't that PROVE that Linux is low quality? I mean, after all, it didn't sell a billion copies off the shelf in the boxed version.



  • @asuffield said:

    Attempted murder is still a crime. Attempted fraud is still a crime. Attempted monopoly abuse is still a crime.

    They don't have to succeed to be criminals. They just have to act maliciously, in bad faith, and in breach of the law - which is precisely what they have been convicted of doing.

    Who did they attempt to murder? Murder is defined as the loss of life (usually human). Where can I see the obituary? Where's the autopsy? I don't know of anyone dying, and if by chance someone did, the coroner has to rule that it was murder.

    Bad logic and poor arguments don't get better just because you keep repeating yourself.



  • @vt_mruhlin said:

    Sure, it's up to users to switch players at that point, but they'll do it as long as they don't have to pay.  Even despite the fact that WMP comes bundled with Windows, I've still got a crapload of other players installed because of this.  Getting rid of a defacto standard just clutters up a consumer's hard drive even more.

    Thanks for protecting the consumer, European Commission, but what people want is a computer that does everything they want to do with it. Major packages like Office or Photoshop are optional and are therefore worth buying separately, but please don't make people install five thousand different apps to do trivial things. I don't want a choice between media players, I want my computer to play media out of the box. I don't care about Nero, I want my computer to burn DVDs. I don't care about Winrar and its competitors, I want my computer to open .rar files.

    Imagine buying a car and being told that the steering wheel, air filter, seats and windows are not included and need to be purchased separately from either the manufacturer of your car or a third party. People may want a different browser (= aftermarket rims), or a high quality stereo (= AutoCAD, Photoshop, ...), but I'm sure most of you are not in the least interested in who made your steering wheel.

    So, could our dear Commission please stfu about media players and worry about proprietary file formats and MS Office instead?



  • @asuffield said:

    @Pidgeot said:

    Exactly how was their business destroyed by Microsoft updating Media Player?

    Attempted murder is still a crime. Attempted fraud is still a crime. Attempted monopoly abuse is still a crime.

    They don't have to succeed to be criminals. They just have to act maliciously, in bad faith, and in breach of the law - which is precisely what they have been convicted of doing.

    But to act in bad faith, you must have a reason. Since those two players didn't do well anyway, there's no reason to update your media player in order to attack them.

    Also, your analogy is flawed - murder and fraud take things away from someone, bundling an updated version of software that's been there for nearly 10 years doesn't. You don't hear about car companies getting sued because they suddenly decide to make something that used to be an extra default.



  • @stratos said:

    Well happily not everyone is using windows, but to address your examples, both lotus and WP made the mistake to not get a windows version out quick enough, this would be one of the main reasons people made the "final" switch. ironical this is probably also why IE is loosing some pretty big grounds, there not innovating fast enough, and firefox seems to be the better product at the moment. However market change is gradual until some critical point get's reached. So MS still has some time to get IE back in the game. But i digress.

    The other reason excel and WP lost out was because you could read and write lotus & WP documents, which also is a critical point. This is only strengthens my point that files are the crucial key to vendor lock-in. 

    Did you even USE Word Perfect or Lotus?  I did.  My mom wrote her thesis papers for college on it.  My step-dad taught it to me because he thought WP was going to be a critical workplace skill.  Office won because it was better.  People switched because the learning curve was smaller and it was almost as good.  People who didn't need the lower learning curve continued to use WP.  Eventually, Office had WP's features and so there was no real reason to pay more for less of a product.  Office was dirt cheap, had almost the same features, and was easier to use.  :-)

    I encourage you to show me actual numbers that demonstrate IE is losing "big grounds".  Good luck, because you won't find much aside from FUD and outright lies.  I looked :)

    I don't care about the specifics, however what is clear is that the move was made to give the products a edge. Which was what the example was illustrating.

    Make sure your products work best with your products, and preferably make other products work worse with your products. 

    Err...so you don't care that the study that proves the point is likely completely false and unverifiable except in one version of Windows and has not really been reproduced?

    I would say that apple is beginning to get a monopoly in mp3 players.

    However on a personal note, i disagree with your statement that "they can do that", but on the other hand if i would have lived in the USA i would probably have been lynched a long time ago for being a commie bastard or whatever. It is my belief that companies should not strive for profit, but strive to create a product that helps consumers.

    While market theory/supply and demand should take care of that; I don't think that it does. Now i'm not a economics guy, but i see what i see and i don't like it. 

    You can disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that they can do that.  Perception != Reality.

    In contrast for your love for it, or what? 

    He's just exaggerating the point, to show the people whom seem to think that companies should be able to get away with everything because the consumer can "vote with his wallet" or whatever crap, that monopolies are just that, because it takes away choice.  

    The example doesn't make sense and is nothing any investor is going to agree upon.  They stand to lose a lot of money and gain virtually nothing.  If it's just hyperbole to explain his point then fine.  But if he actually believes it's reasonable that would happen I don't know what to say.

    What say you about Government Enforced Monopolies?



  • @asuffield said:

    @Kemp said:

    @asuffield said:

    Still not getting it. It's not a monopoly abuse to ship a tool. It is a monopoly abuse to deliberately and maliciously destroy the business of another company by exploiting your monopoly. Microsoft were not convicted of shipping Media Player, they were convicted of deliberately attacking Apple and RealNetworks.

    Deliberately attacking Apple and RealNetworks? I wouldn't use iTunes (on Windows) or RealPlayer at all. Ever. If I was paid to. If you want market share then go make a good product, neither iTunes (again, on Windows) nor RealPlayer is a good product.

    I suppose that you are also favour of legalising theft of undesirable items and murder of undesirable people.

    The law as it currently stands does not work that way. The value of the victim is not considered when determining whether a crime has been committed.

    You are deliberately applying what I said to a completely different and unrelated scenario. The accusation was that very few people are using iTunes and RealPlayer on Windows because they were being locked in. That is simply not true. Very few people use them because they suck.

     To adopt your style of argument, this is like someone giving a damaged possession to someone else and then claiming that it was stolen in order to get the full insurance money. The fault doesn't lay with the so-called thief. (and I know, you can call assisting and complicity, but that's taking the already bad analogy too far)



  • @Pidgeot said:

    @asuffield said:
    @Pidgeot said:

    Exactly how was their business destroyed by Microsoft updating Media Player?

    Attempted murder is still a crime. Attempted fraud is still a crime. Attempted monopoly abuse is still a crime.

    They don't have to succeed to be criminals. They just have to act maliciously, in bad faith, and in breach of the law - which is precisely what they have been convicted of doing.

    But to act in bad faith, you must have a reason. Since those two players didn't do well anyway, there's no reason to update your media player in order to attack them.

    Stupid criminal actions are still criminal actions. There is no insanity defence for corporations.

     

    Also, your analogy is flawed - murder and fraud take things away from someone, bundling an updated version of software that's been there for nearly 10 years doesn't.

    Waving a knife in the air isn't a crime unless you wave it through a space where another person is standing.

    Murder and fraud are the closest personal crimes - rather than one person attacking another person (physically or financially), this is one corporation attacking another; in both cases, the intent is to injure/kill/steal (for a corporation, there's no real difference between them).

    Bundling a new version of a piece of software, which has new features intended to eliminate the market for a third party, does take something away from that third party: their customers and revenue. Microsoft acted with the intent to do this, and to some extent they even succeeded - but what's really important is that they tried to do it, not whether it worked.

     

    You don't hear about car companies getting sued because they suddenly decide to make something that used to be an extra default.

    You would if they were monopolies, and they were doing it with the intent to force a third party out of the market. You can't commit monopoly abuse if you don't have a monopoly. Monopoly abuse is not about adding features. Monopoly abuse is about deliberate attacks on the markets of third parties, using a monopoly as the weapon.

    I do not see why so many people find it hard to grasp the difference between "adding a feature" and "using a monopoly to undercut the market of a third party, with the intent to drive that third party out of the market". They are completely different things.



  • @Kemp said:

    @asuffield said:
    @Kemp said:

    @asuffield said:

    Still not getting it. It's not a monopoly abuse to ship a tool. It is a monopoly abuse to deliberately and maliciously destroy the business of another company by exploiting your monopoly. Microsoft were not convicted of shipping Media Player, they were convicted of deliberately attacking Apple and RealNetworks.

    Deliberately attacking Apple and RealNetworks? I wouldn't use iTunes (on Windows) or RealPlayer at all. Ever. If I was paid to. If you want market share then go make a good product, neither iTunes (again, on Windows) nor RealPlayer is a good product.

    I suppose that you are also favour of legalising theft of undesirable items and murder of undesirable people.

    The law as it currently stands does not work that way. The value of the victim is not considered when determining whether a crime has been committed.

    You are deliberately applying what I said to a completely different and unrelated scenario.

    You are deliberately applying different principles in different scenarios in order to excuse your prejudices. It is unconscionable to justify a crime by saying that the victim is unworthy of having the protection of the law, regardless of the scenario. There is no requirement for the scenarios to be related in order to apply such a fundamental ethical concept.


    The accusation was that very few people are using iTunes and RealPlayer on Windows because they were being locked in. That is simply not true. Very few people use them because they suck.

    People who actually know what they are talking about have investigated this and say that you are wrong. You can find reports from some of them listed as evidence in the EU's investigation. Microsoft's actions have had a real and definite impact on the marketplace. It is possible that other things have also affected the market, but that is not a defence.

     

    To adopt your style of argument, this is like someone giving a damaged possession to someone else and then claiming that it was stolen in order to get the full insurance money.

    I fail to see how Microsoft's deliberate attempts to abuse their monopoly were in any way under the control of Apple or RealNetworks. The essential point of your analogy (that the 'victim' was responsible for the crime) does not apply.



  • @asuffield said:

    I fail to see how Microsoft's deliberate attempts to abuse their monopoly were in any way under the control of Apple or RealNetworks. The essential point of your analogy (that the 'victim' was responsible for the crime) does not apply.

    No, he's saying that the reason people didn't buy realplayer is that it sucked. Nevermind that the only real evidence that it sucks (apart from his opinion, and does anyone here really think WM doesn't also suck just as much?)  is that no-one bought it.



  • @asuffield said:

    I fail to see how Microsoft's deliberate attempts to abuse their monopoly were in any way under the control of Apple or RealNetworks. The essential point of your analogy (that the 'victim' was responsible for the crime) does not apply.

    You're assuming that my defense of one point stands as the defense of a different point. I'm not saying the MS aren't forming a monopoly, nor am I saying that monopolies are ok. What I am saying is that *this particuilar case* was just an attempt to grab money off the back of people having a problem with MS business pratices. I personally don't like MS pratices and I like to see them get beaten down a bit as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean that every case against them is valid.

    I stand by my assertion that if iTunes and RealPlayer were good then they would obtain a larger userbase, but if you stop MS shipping things like IE and Media Player with their OS then all it does is throw even more obstacles in the way of new users as well as making everyone make more downloads. If you don't like any of the default tools then switch them, I use Firefox and VLC personally. If a new user doesn't know enough to find out about these alternate tools (the entire basis of half of the lock-in argument is people just using whatever comes with the OS) then what are the chances they'll know where to go to download them if they *don't* come with the OS?

     Again, my argument isn't that MS are a nice company to compete with, and I definitely think they should be challenged on more things. I just think that this particular challenge is counter-productive.
     



  • On a related note, I don't own a single computer with Windows on it, and I can't stand using the OS. I use Linux and OpenOffice.org.

    My work laptop, on the other hand, is Windows. I have to use Outlook, Excel, and Word, three programs that I absolutely hate. Not to mention that I hate the OS itself. So why do I use it? Because everybody else at work does, and it doesn't play well with others.

    That's the kind of example that people in this thread are talking about.



  • @asuffield said:

    @Cap'n Steve said:

    I understand that they can't make artificial barriers (like not allowing OEMs to install other browsers), but that's not the case here, is it?

    I'm sure some company makes calculator software, at what point do they make MS remove calc.exe?

    Still not getting it. It's not a monopoly abuse to ship a tool. It is a monopoly abuse to deliberately and maliciously destroy the business of another company by exploiting your monopoly. Microsoft were not convicted of shipping Media Player, they were convicted of deliberately attacking Apple and RealNetworks.



    How are they attacking Apple and Real by including a media player in Windows?  How is including a calculator [b]not[/b] an attack on the calculator software companies?



  • @Cap'n Steve said:

    @asuffield said:

    @Cap'n Steve said:

    I understand that they can't make artificial barriers (like not allowing OEMs to install other browsers), but that's not the case here, is it?

    I'm sure some company makes calculator software, at what point do they make MS remove calc.exe?

    Still not getting it. It's not a monopoly abuse to ship a tool. It is a monopoly abuse to deliberately and maliciously destroy the business of another company by exploiting your monopoly. Microsoft were not convicted of shipping Media Player, they were convicted of deliberately attacking Apple and RealNetworks.



    How are they attacking Apple and Real by including a media player in Windows? How is including a calculator [b]not[/b] an attack on the calculator software companies?

    There isn't a real "hardline"  distinction between, what is and what isn't abuse. However it is clear that you can draw a line between trivial and non-trivial software, where that line is drawn is of course hard to decide, and can probably only be decided on a case by case basis.

    Although i don't think there is a market in it, because it's a basic student test to write your own calculator, but let's say there was a new enterprising business in advanced calculator functions to create non-trivial graphs and such.  

    When such a market would emerge and a clear distinction of players can be seen, and Microsoft would then expand their default calculator to do everything or most of what the players in the market are doing, i would say there could be a case of unfair competition.  It would be my guess that others in this thread would not find it unfair competition, however happily enough it is not up to any of us, but is determined by people whom hopefully have a much better grasp of the impact and characteristic of such practises.

    A point i always see when such issues are discussed, is that people seem to treat companies as if they are people, however i come from a country where companies explicitly are not the same as people, and have almost none of the rights a person has. Companies are granted business by the country, and the country has every right to stop companies. Of course this is bound to rules and not done whimsical, but in essence a company operates by the grace of the government.

    Lot's of stuff for instance is forced on companies by the government.  For example, there is a expected time period a given products is expected to last, for the entire span of this time, the company is forced to repair it or replace it, or choose to unbind the contract of purchase (refund). This explicitly applies to the company that sold to the consumer, so if i buy a prefab (HP/compaq/whatever) computer at some store, and after half a year my video card dies because it was a bad batch or something. The store is forced to either replace or repair the product, or if it chooses so to give me a refund.

    Now this is just a example of one law to demonstrate the stance the government takes to protect consumers.  This is why i "expect" my government, or the EU crowd to make seemingly unfair decisions against companies to protect the market and the consumer.

     



  • @stratos said:

    @Cap'n Steve said:
    @asuffield said:

    @Cap'n Steve said:

    I understand that they can't make artificial barriers (like not allowing OEMs to install other browsers), but that's not the case here, is it?

    I'm sure some company makes calculator software, at what point do they make MS remove calc.exe?

    Still not getting it. It's not a monopoly abuse to ship a tool. It is a monopoly abuse to deliberately and maliciously destroy the business of another company by exploiting your monopoly. Microsoft were not convicted of shipping Media Player, they were convicted of deliberately attacking Apple and RealNetworks.



    How are they attacking Apple and Real by including a media player in Windows? How is including a calculator [b]not[/b] an attack on the calculator software companies?

    When such a market would emerge and a clear distinction of players can be seen, and Microsoft would then expand their default calculator to do everything or most of what the players in the market are doing, i would say there could be a case of unfair competition.  It would be my guess that others in this thread would not find it unfair competition, however happily enough it is not up to any of us, but is determined by people whom hopefully have a much better grasp of the impact and characteristic of such practises.



    By that logic, though, they should be banned from ever improving Internet Explorer.  I don't think anyone wants that, not even Mozilla or Opera.  And for what it's worth, they do make a graphing calculator, but it has to be downloaded.  Maybe they [i]were[/i] afraid of being sued if they put it on the Windows cd.

    @Random832 said:
    No, he's saying that the reason people didn't buy realplayer is that it sucked. Nevermind that the only real evidence that it sucks (apart from his opinion, and does anyone here really think WM doesn't also suck just as much?) is that no-one bought it.


    This makes me think you never used Real Player.  Although to be fair, it's allegedly much better in the newest version.  Some choice opinions:

    [url]http://bash.org/?478519[/url]
    [url]http://bash.org/?231741[/url]
    [url]http://bash.org/?15956[/url]
    [url]http://bash.org/?676801[/url]
    [url]http://bash.org/?106634[/url]



  • @Cap'n Steve said:

    @stratos said:
    @Cap'n Steve said:
    @asuffield said:

    @Cap'n Steve said:

    I understand that they can't make artificial barriers (like not allowing OEMs to install other browsers), but that's not the case here, is it?

    I'm sure some company makes calculator software, at what point do they make MS remove calc.exe?

    Still not getting it. It's not a monopoly abuse to ship a tool. It is a monopoly abuse to deliberately and maliciously destroy the business of another company by exploiting your monopoly. Microsoft were not convicted of shipping Media Player, they were convicted of deliberately attacking Apple and RealNetworks.



    How are they attacking Apple and Real by including a media player in Windows? How is including a calculator [b]not[/b] an attack on the calculator software companies?

    When such a market would emerge and a clear distinction of players can be seen, and Microsoft would then expand their default calculator to do everything or most of what the players in the market are doing, i would say there could be a case of unfair competition. It would be my guess that others in this thread would not find it unfair competition, however happily enough it is not up to any of us, but is determined by people whom hopefully have a much better grasp of the impact and characteristic of such practises.



    By that logic, though, they should be banned from ever improving Internet Explorer.

    You are still obsessing over this notion of "monopoly abuse means when somebody with a monopoly adds a feature".

    Where did you get this idea? Get rid of it. It's wrong.

    THE SPECIFIC CHANGES MADE ARE IRRELEVANT.

    Monopoly abuse is a crime of intent and effect. The action that created the effect is neither important nor relevant to the case. If you have a monopoly and you act with intent to drive somebody out of a market by exploiting that monopoly, and your effect is to partially or completely drive them out of that market, then you have committed monopoly abuse, REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU GO ABOUT DOING THAT.

    You can commit monopoly abuse with a web browser, or a calculator, or a new type of pencil. You can commit murder with a gun, or a knife, or a rock. The method does not have anything to do with it.

     

    Imagine that person X killed person Y by hitting them with a rock. A court convicts person X of murder and sends them to jail. What you are doing is like objecting to this conviction because there's nothing wrong about having a rock, and complaining that next they'll be arresting other people for having rocks. It is not about the fucking rock.



  • @Kemp said:

    I'm not saying the MS aren't forming a monopoly, nor am I saying that monopolies are ok. What I am saying is that this particuilar case was just an attempt to grab money off the back of people having a problem with MS business pratices.

    The intent and actions of Microsoft have been proven to the satisfaction of a court (if you read the actual documentation for the conviction, rather than media reports written by Microsoft, it becomes apparent how blatant and deliberate Microsoft's actions were - this is no accidental effect, it was deliberate criminal behaviour on a scale we would normally only associate with psychopaths). It is not easy to prove something in court.

    How exactly do you intend to prove both that this was wrong and that the court was acting with corrupt intent? Do you even understand the scope of the accusation you are making? If you could prove that level of corruption, it would quite literally bring down the EU government, and probably several of the governments of member countries. It would make Watergate look like a minor infraction by comparison.



  • So, they, with malicious intent, added features to their software, improving their product to the public? Gee, I'm glad the EU is protecting me, the consumer, from their horrible improving! God forbid I have to use a good product!

    How exactly do you tell if a change is malicious or not, anyway? It's not like the OS is deliberately crippling other programs.
     



  • @Cap'n Steve said:

    @Random832 said:

    No, he's saying that the reason people didn't buy realplayer is that it sucked. Nevermind that the only real evidence that it sucks (apart from his opinion, and does anyone here really think WM doesn't also suck just as much?) is that no-one bought it.

    This makes me think you never used Real Player.

    My opinion isn't evidence either.



  • @asuffield said:

    You are still obsessing over this notion of "monopoly abuse means when somebody with a monopoly adds a feature".

    Where did you get this idea? Get rid of it. It's wrong.

    THE SPECIFIC CHANGES MADE ARE IRRELEVANT.

    Monopoly abuse is a crime of intent and effect. The action that created the effect is neither important nor relevant to the case. If you have a monopoly and you act with intent to drive somebody out of a market by exploiting that monopoly, and your effect is to partially or completely drive them out of that market, then you have committed monopoly abuse, REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU GO ABOUT DOING THAT.

    You can commit monopoly abuse with a web browser, or a calculator, or a new type of pencil. You can commit murder with a gun, or a knife, or a rock. The method does not have anything to do with it.

    Imagine that person X killed person Y by hitting them with a rock. A court convicts person X of murder and sends them to jail. What you are doing is like objecting to this conviction because there's nothing wrong about having a rock, and complaining that next they'll be arresting other people for having rocks. It is not about the fucking rock.

    And you're still confusing the definition of a monopoly. A monopoly exists when THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES. That is not the case with Windows as an OS (OS/X, Linux, Unix, etc.), Office as an office suite (OpenOffice, Lotus Symphony [just announced]), IE as a browser (Opera, Mozilla, FireFox, Lynx, Safari), or any of the other stuff MS produces. You just can't seem to comprehend this.

    The EU's finding is assinine, as are your repeated attempts to support them and your failing logic during those attempts.

    And any idiot who equates the loss of a human life with corporate business is just that - an idiot, if not a total imbecile. Even if there were a monopoly situation here, it's not the same as the death of a living being; if you can't understand the difference, you're even dumber than you've made yourself appear in your posts here. 



  • @asuffield said:

    The intent and actions of Microsoft have been proven to the satisfaction of a court (if you read the actual documentation for the conviction, rather than media reports written by Microsoft, it becomes apparent how blatant and deliberate Microsoft's actions were - this is no accidental effect, it was deliberate criminal behaviour on a scale we would normally only associate with psychopaths). It is not easy to prove something in court.

    How exactly do you intend to prove both that this was wrong and that the court was acting with corrupt intent? Do you even understand the scope of the accusation you are making? If you could prove that level of corruption, it would quite literally bring down the EU government, and probably several of the governments of member countries. It would make Watergate look like a minor infraction by comparison.

    Courts can be wrong as easily as people can - look at all of the people who have been wrongly convicted and sent to prison, only later being exonerated and released because evidence is reexamined using newer technology, or new evidence is discovered. How can you PROVE that the court didn't make a mistake in this case, or act with some ulterior motive that we're not privy to? You can't with 100% certainty, but you're certainly willing to accept the verdict without allowing for the possibility that it was wrong.

    I'm not saying that MS has never acted using questionable business tactics - I'm saying that they don't have a monopoly in any of the areas where they do business, and therefore can't use the monopoly to crush competition. You can't use a weapon you don't have, to use your knife reference. 



  • @KenW said:

    I'm not saying that MS has never acted using questionable business tactics - I'm saying that they don't have a monopoly in any of the areas where they do business, and therefore can't use the monopoly to crush competition. You can't use a weapon you don't have, to use your knife reference. 

    That's exactly my point that he failed to get previously. Yes we all hate MS (a generalisation, I know it isn't true in all cases), yes MS have used very questionable business practices on occasion, and yes they may very well be attempting to obtain a monopoly. However, and here is the important thing, they don't actually have one. There are plenty of alternatives. And before you pull the "average user" argument again, a lot of people I know that know very little about the computing world (and who I haven't mentioned things to in any real way) have been asking me about alternatives. All my non-techie friends have been ditching IE, a lot are considering trying out Linux (if not as a main OS then at least to run some particular pieces of software, which wouldn't happen under your argument), several are on Macs, and a nice proportion are switching to free tools such as Open Office instead of MS Office. Yes, Windows and MS tools in general are still a majority choice (or the default choice for a lot of people), but it is nowhere near a monopoly, and if a piece of software comes out for Linux that people need to use then people go out and try Linux. If Firefox offers a feature they want (built in or by extension) then they go out and download Firefox.

     In the same way, if RealPlayer offered a feature they wanted... nah, I can't hold a straight face through that one. But seriously, a substantial number of people are switching to VLC and other alternatives. I personally use VLC, most of my techie friends use VLC, half of my non-techie friends use it.
     



  • @asuffield said:

    You apparently have no comprehension of Microsoft's crime (yes, it's a crime) or what the EU commission is trying to accomplish.

    ...

    This is a criminal act. It is not an accident, it is deliberate and malicious on their part, and they knew that it was illegal when they did it.

    I am puzzled as to why you think it so strange that the EU commission should do something about it. I can only suppose that you are outraged every time a court convicts somebody of theft, property damage, fraud, or anything similar.

    ...

     Yeah. It really irks me those Euro car makers ship autos with steering wheels already installed.  I could make good money selling steering wheels.  We need Congress to stop them sending BMWs with steering wheels pre-installed. Hah! And don't get me started about those brakes!

     



  • @Kemp said:

    @KenW said:

    I'm not saying that MS has never acted using questionable business tactics - I'm saying that they don't have a monopoly in any of the areas where they do business, and therefore can't use the monopoly to crush competition. You can't use a weapon you don't have, to use your knife reference. 

    That's exactly my point that he failed to get previously. Yes we all hate MS (a generalisation, I know it isn't true in all cases), yes MS have used very questionable business practices on occasion, and yes they may very well be attempting to obtain a monopoly. However, and here is the important thing, they don't actually have one. There are plenty of alternatives. And before you pull the "average user" argument again, a lot of people I know that know very little about the computing world (and who I haven't mentioned things to in any real way) have been asking me about alternatives. All my non-techie friends have been ditching IE, a lot are considering trying out Linux (if not as a main OS then at least to run some particular pieces of software, which wouldn't happen under your argument), several are on Macs, and a nice proportion are switching to free tools such as Open Office instead of MS Office. Yes, Windows and MS tools in general are still a majority choice (or the default choice for a lot of people), but it is nowhere near a monopoly, and if a piece of software comes out for Linux that people need to use then people go out and try Linux. If Firefox offers a feature they want (built in or by extension) then they go out and download Firefox.

     In the same way, if RealPlayer offered a feature they wanted... nah, I can't hold a straight face through that one. But seriously, a substantial number of people are switching to VLC and other alternatives. I personally use VLC, most of my techie friends use VLC, half of my non-techie friends use it.
     

    Case in point on this:

    My parents stopped using Internet Explorer 6 (pre IE7) and asked me about alternatives because they got tired of it.  They didn't like the UI, they didn't "the windows all over the place", and didn't like they couldn't figure out what was what (they don't know about or use ALT+TAB - if it's not in the Taskbar, it's gone).  I showed them Firefox (which my step-dad still calls "The Firey Fox browser" or "FoxFire" depending on his mood) and they love it.  I'm not sure I could make them go away from it without invoking the scary security word.  Point is, they didn't know what the alternatives were, but even their 30 minute internet surfing a day caused them to ask about alternatives.  The average user knows what they do and don't like, but they just may not know about the alternative.

    My mother-in-law switched to Mac because she uses all the iWhatever things out there and decided she liked the Mac design.  It comes in complete Japanese, which is a major weakness of Windows until Vista, and thus it was a superior product for her needs.  There ya go - she's a mac user.

    And the knife analogy thing is really childish.  I think most of us here are at least educated enough to be above foolishness like that.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @ShadowWolf said:

    And the knife analogy thing is really childish.  I think most of us here are at least educated enough to be above foolishness like that.

    You reckon? 



  • @asuffield said:

    @Cap'n Steve said:
    @stratos said:
    @Cap'n Steve said:
    @asuffield said:

    @Cap'n Steve said:

    I understand that they can't make artificial barriers (like not allowing OEMs to install other browsers), but that's not the case here, is it?

    I'm sure some company makes calculator software, at what point do they make MS remove calc.exe?

    Still not getting it. It's not a monopoly abuse to ship a tool. It is a monopoly abuse to deliberately and maliciously destroy the business of another company by exploiting your monopoly. Microsoft were not convicted of shipping Media Player, they were convicted of deliberately attacking Apple and RealNetworks.



    How are they attacking Apple and Real by including a media player in Windows? How is including a calculator [b]not[/b] an attack on the calculator software companies?

    When such a market would emerge and a clear distinction of players can be seen, and Microsoft would then expand their default calculator to do everything or most of what the players in the market are doing, i would say there could be a case of unfair competition. It would be my guess that others in this thread would not find it unfair competition, however happily enough it is not up to any of us, but is determined by people whom hopefully have a much better grasp of the impact and characteristic of such practises.



    By that logic, though, they should be banned from ever improving Internet Explorer.

    You are still obsessing over this notion of "monopoly abuse means when somebody with a monopoly adds a feature".

    Where did you get this idea? Get rid of it. It's wrong.

    THE SPECIFIC CHANGES MADE ARE IRRELEVANT.

    Monopoly abuse is a crime of intent and effect. The action that created the effect is neither important nor relevant to the case. If you have a monopoly and you act with intent to drive somebody out of a market by exploiting that monopoly, and your effect is to partially or completely drive them out of that market, then you have committed monopoly abuse, REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU GO ABOUT DOING THAT.



    I understand, but what sign are you and the EU comission seeing that makes you think MS wants to drive Real out of business but doesn't care about Mozilla?  And isn't it pretty much [i]always[/i] intended to drive your competitors out of business when you have a product?

    Of course MS isn't a monopoly, it's just about impossible to have an actual monopoly.  What they get in trouble for is anti-competitive practices.



  • @Cap'n Steve said:


    I understand, but what sign are you and the EU comission seeing that makes you think MS wants to drive Real out of business but doesn't care about Mozilla?

    Bundling WMP?

    Mozilla.. well, it looks they have already had success in pushing Netscape out of the market. The return of Firefox is IMO even a surprise. 

    And isn't it pretty much [i]always[/i] intended to drive your competitors out of business when you have a product?

    Yes, but they may not use their monopoly in one market to push competitors out of another market.



  • @ammoQ said:

    @Cap'n Steve said:


    I understand, but what sign are you and the EU comission seeing that makes you think MS wants to drive Real out of business but doesn't care about Mozilla?

    Bundling WMP?

     

    Oh! I got it! Then Apple must be a monopoly because they bundle iTunes, right? They're committing the same violation.

    @ammoq said:

     

    Mozilla.. well, it looks they have already had success in pushing Netscape out of the market. The return of Firefox is IMO even a surprise.

    Well, that means that Mozilla now is being anti-competitive, because they "had success in pushing Netscape out of the market." according to you. Should the EU find that they're in violation of the law and fine them lots and lots of Euros?


    Careful, ammoq. You're starting to make as little sense as Andrew, and I've always enjoyed your posts before now. <g>



  • @Kemp said:

    That's exactly my point that he failed to get previously.

    You think he only missed one? <g> 

    @Kemp said:

     

     In the same way, if RealPlayer offered a feature they wanted... nah, I can't hold a straight face through that one. But seriously, a substantial number of people are switching to VLC and other alternatives. I personally use VLC, most of my techie friends use VLC, half of my non-techie friends use it.
     

    I wouldn't have been able to keep a straight face there, either.

    I personally don't play music on my PC unless I'm traveling somewhere; I strictly use a laptop, and a) the internal speakers don't provide good enough sound quality, and b) I tend to purchase all my music on CD instead of downloading it, so it's just as easy to throw a few CDs into the changer and let 'em play.



  • @KenW said:

    Oh! I got it! Then Apple must be a monopoly because they bundle iTunes, right? They're committing the same violation.

    If Apple had the market share of MS, they would certainly face the same problem with the software they bundle with their macs. 

    Well, that means that Mozilla now is being anti-competitive, because they "had success in pushing Netscape out of the market." according to you. Should the EU find that they're in violation of the law and fine them lots and lots of Euros?

    I see no indication that Mozilla has a monoply they could abuse to push anyone out of any market.



  • @ammoQ said:

    @KenW said:

    Oh! I got it! Then Apple must be a monopoly because they bundle iTunes, right? They're committing the same violation.

    If Apple had the market share of MS, they would certainly face the same problem with the software they bundle with their macs. 

    Well, that means that Mozilla now is being anti-competitive, because they "had success in pushing Netscape out of the market." according to you. Should the EU find that they're in violation of the law and fine them lots and lots of Euros?

    I see no indication that Mozilla has a monoply they could abuse to push anyone out of any market.

    NS wasn't pushed out of the market. What they did was squatting on the edge of a cliff, keeling over slowly, and then forcefully stretching their legs mid-keel.



  • @ammoQ said:

    well, it looks they have already had success in pushing Netscape out of the market.

    I assume you're talking about MS pushing them out, as Mozilla pushing them out is a ridiculous argument (hint: they used to be the same product by the same guys). By admission of the very people who worked on NS, they caused their own fate by ditching a half-working product and starting from scratch on something that only a few of them believed would ever make it to release. The only thing MS did to push them out was to have a browser that actually worked.



  • @Kemp said:

    @ammoQ said:

    well, it looks they have already had success in pushing Netscape out of the market.

    I assume you're talking about MS pushing them out, as Mozilla pushing them out is a ridiculous argument (hint: they used to be the same product by the same guys). By admission of the very people who worked on NS, they caused their own fate by ditching a half-working product and starting from scratch on something that only a few of them believed would ever make it to release. The only thing MS did to push them out was to have a browser that actually worked.

    Netscape 4 was obviously a piece of crap, so to some extend, it was NS' own fault that they lost. Anyway, MS also used dirty tricks to destroy Netscape. Remember all the dirty details revealed in the DOJ vs. MS case?

     

     



  • @ammoQ said:

    @Cap'n Steve said:


    I understand, but what sign are you and the EU comission seeing that makes you think MS wants to drive Real out of business but doesn't care about Mozilla?

    Bundling WMP?



    Yes, but if you count everything that comes in Windows, MS is probably competing in 100 different markets.  What's special about the media player business?



  • @Cap'n Steve said:

    @ammoQ said:

    @Cap'n Steve said:


    I understand, but what sign are you and the EU comission seeing that makes you think MS wants to drive Real out of business but doesn't care about Mozilla?

    Bundling WMP?



    Yes, but if you count everything that comes in Windows, MS is probably competing in 100 different markets. What's special about the media player business?

    I think the main reason why WMP is considered "evil" and Minesweeper isn't, is that WMP opens the way to other markets - selling content, selling media servers. When Real gives away their player for free, it's not because of altruism. 



  • @Cap'n Steve said:

    Yes, but if you count everything that comes in Windows, MS is probably competing in 100 different markets. What's special about the media player business?


    DRM. Particularly on embedded devices where installing other play isn't really possible. It has the potential to stamp all over consumer rights,  make someone a lot of money ( small fees on every player and track sold soon add up) and prevent interoperability while stifling innovation.

    I think the EC and others thought it was important that whatever DRM solution won did so because it was the best all round solution. Not because it was installed by default on nearly every PC sold.

     @Cap'n Steve said:

    And isn't it pretty much [i]always[/i] intended to drive your competitors out of business when you have a product?

    No, the intention is to sell the product and make as much money as possible. Trying to drive competitors out of business usually results in a downwards pressure on prices leading to less profit. Not a great result if you don't manage to crush the opposition.
    IME it's more often used as a technique to motivate employees (including management) and sometimes please shareholders.
     



  • @stinch said:

    No, the intention is to sell the product and make as much money as possible. Trying to drive competitors out of business usually results in a downwards pressure on prices leading to less profit. Not a great result if you don't manage to crush the opposition.
    IME it's more often used as a technique to motivate employees (including management) and sometimes please shareholders.

    Sometimes, especially in growing markets, market share is more important for the decision makers than profit. Obviously, to gain market share, someone else has to lose it...



  • @Cap'n Steve said:


    I understand, but what sign are you and the EU comission seeing that makes you think MS wants to drive Real out of business but doesn't care about Mozilla?


    The standard procedure in an anti-trust case is to subpoena all of the offending company's internal memos, documents, and email. As usual, the ones collected from Microsoft were damning - carefully laid and executed plans at high levels in the company. They didn't even try to hide it.

    Microsoft have already been convicted of the same crime with respect to Netscape, so they're probably more careful about what they do about Mozilla. That's not to say that they don't do the same sort of things, just that nobody has been able to uncover and prove it yet.

    And isn't it pretty much [i]always[/i] intended to drive your competitors out of business when you have a product?

    Driving your competitors out of business with your competing product is okay. Doing it with your unrelated monopoly product is not.

     

    It is remarkably hard to prove monopoly abuse in court, which is why we don't see these cases very often. Smart criminals can usually get away with it by being careful not to leave a written record and having plausible alternate justifications for their actions. Microsoft only get hit with these things so often because they're stupid - they leave an audit trail that a blind janitor could follow.



  • Smart criminals can usually get away with it by being careful not to leave a written record and having plausible alternate justifications for their actions. Microsoft only get hit with these things so often because they're stupid - they leave an audit trail that a blind janitor could follow.

    No, it's because they just don't care.  They've proven their apathy toward these types of things in the past.  I mean, in their big DoJ case, they basically laughed at the judge the whole time.  In the end, they basically got off with little that they probably wouldn't have had to do by the increasing market pressures today.

    I'm going to guess that you were a proponent of the "two divisions" ruling that came out.



  • @ShadowWolf said:

    I mean, in their big DoJ case, they basically laughed at the judge the whole time.  In the end, they basically got off with little that they probably wouldn't have had to do by the increasing market pressures today.

    This probably did contribute to their attitude, but the sequence of events was rather more suspicious than that. Microsoft was convicted; they appealed, and the appellate court upheld some of the rulings and remanded the rest, so the case was sent back to the lower court (where it should probably have gone to a retrial). At this point, Bush got elected and replaced the US Attorney General's office with his own people (as is traditional for a new president). Suddenly, even though they had already won the case once, the AG's office decided to settle rather than continuing, and Microsoft was let off with no real penalty.

    Coincidentally, Microsoft and several of its executives made substantial campaign donations to Bush. It's impossible to prove, but it's pretty obvious what happened.


    I'm going to guess that you were a proponent of the "two divisions" ruling that came out.

    It wouldn't have accomplished anything. The only practical test of the "splitting up a huge company" method is AT&T, and we all know how that ended up. What was needed (and didn't happen) was to force Microsoft to use a fair pricing model and stop using the "do what we say or we'll make all your computers cost $200 more" trick.



  • What was needed (and didn't happen) was to force Microsoft to use a fair pricing model and stop using the "do what we say or we'll make all your computers cost $200 more" trick.

    I agree on the 2nd term, but it only begs the question, "What is a fair pricing model?".  Talk about misery to figure that one out...



  • @ShadowWolf said:

    What was needed (and didn't happen) was to force Microsoft to use a fair pricing model and stop using the "do what we say or we'll make all your computers cost $200 more" trick.

    I agree on the 2nd term, but it only begs the question, "What is a fair pricing model?".  Talk about misery to figure that one out...

    I guess there is no such thing as a "fair pricing model" in this case. Force them to make Windows expensive and those ~90% of the customers who can't or don't want to switch to an other OS will suffer. Force them to make it cheap and discourage all other commercial competitors to even try to enter the market. If there is anything that helps, it's IMO "force them to apply to standards and open their file formats and network protocols". Which, by the pressure of the market, is currently not too far from possible. IMO the monopoly as such is already eroding. Linux on the server is already the most normal thing of the world. Even Linux on the desktop is no longer just-for-nerds anymore, though the adoption rate is rather slow. Maybe in a few years, there will be products like "Visual Studio 2011 for Linux" and "Microsoft Office 2011 for Linux". Who knows. Ten years ago, the idea that a major database vendor would port their RDBMS to Linux was ridiculous, with the relatively exotic ADABAS being the only exception. Today, the only major RDBMS not ported to Linux is MS SQL Server, for obvious reasons.



  • @ShadowWolf said:

    What was needed (and didn't happen) was to force Microsoft to use a fair pricing model and stop using the "do what we say or we'll make all your computers cost $200 more" trick.

    I agree on the 2nd term, but it only begs the question, "What is a fair pricing model?".  Talk about misery to figure that one out...

    Any model that isn't biased towards certain buyers would qualify. The courts would have been legally and ethically justified in using this punitively: they could have required Microsoft to set one price for Windows and sell it to everybody at that price, with no special deals for anybody.

    (Yes, it's an infringement on their rights, etc. Criminal sentences are supposed to do that - that's why it's punishment. People get sent to jail, and corporations get restrictions on the ways in which they can do business)



  • @asuffield said:

    @ShadowWolf said:

    What was needed (and didn't happen) was to force Microsoft to use a fair pricing model and stop using the "do what we say or we'll make all your computers cost $200 more" trick.

    I agree on the 2nd term, but it only begs the question, "What is a fair pricing model?".  Talk about misery to figure that one out...

    Any model that isn't biased towards certain buyers would qualify. The courts would have been legally and ethically justified in using this punitively: they could have required Microsoft to set one price for Windows and sell it to everybody at that price, with no special deals for anybody.

    (Yes, it's an infringement on their rights, etc. Criminal sentences are supposed to do that - that's why it's punishment. People get sent to jail, and corporations get restrictions on the ways in which they can do business)

    No. They could still take advantage of such an "unbiased" model by charging that one price per computer manufactured, rather than per windows license sold. Manufacturers who don't want to sell windows on _all_ their machines get screwed.



  • they could have required Microsoft to set one price for Windows and sell it to everybody at that price, with no special deals for anybody.

    I guess this is the basis of my fundamental issue with the whole thing.  Because that scenario is just an enforced monopoloy and ensures that Microsoft won't do anything with their monopoloy (see Cable, Telephone, and Cell Phones in the US vs. Other countries).  In the end, the consumer loses big time.

    My thought is, don't accuse someone of a crime they didn't commit.  While it's true Microsoft price fixed, you can't assume they did everything else associated with a monopoloy too, which is what the first judge did and screwed himself.  Probably should've gotten in to major trouble for being an ass for no good reason.

    Ding 'em for price manipulation and unfair practices and call it a day.  If they do it again, ding 'em again big time.  Going above that is bad for the consumer (ie, me) and therefore hurts the market.  Lose-lose situations aren't my idea of a good time.



  • @ShadowWolf said:

    While it's true Microsoft price fixed, you can't assume they did everything else associated with a monopoloy too, which is what the first judge did and screwed himself.

    The only thing the first judge did that caused all the trouble, was to give an unauthorised media interview in which he expressed opinions on the outcome of the case. That was stupid - judges are not supposed to tell the media anything other than facts about cases that haven't been closed yet. Basically, the court threw out the judge, not the case.



  • @asuffield said:

    @ShadowWolf said:

    While it's true Microsoft price fixed, you can't assume they did everything else associated with a monopoloy too, which is what the first judge did and screwed himself.

    The only thing the first judge did that caused all the trouble, was to give an unauthorised media interview in which he expressed opinions on the outcome of the case. That was stupid - judges are not supposed to tell the media anything other than facts about cases that haven't been closed yet. Basically, the court threw out the judge, not the case.

    That's what got his whole ruling thrown out in the first place, but the court also stated his ruling as far as punishment went was way off base and ended up settling in the end.  You have to believe there was something to convince them to settle rather than go on with the case.  And there's no lack of truth to the fact that Judge Jackson had a completely bias point of view to the whole thing.

    It's one of those things we are left to speculate; however, you can kind of see that there were some things in the first trial that severely damaged the whole thing.


Log in to reply