Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 24th Apr 2006 20:29 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 117940
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.




Member since:
2005-07-13
These people spend all their effort in promoting upcoming software, that'll be released years from the marketing start, fail to include lots of announced features... what's the deal with these people?
Excerpted from Judge Sporkin's memorandum denying the anti-trust settlement agreement between the US Gov and Microsoft (Feb 1995):
The Court has been particularly concerned about the accusations of "vaporware." Microsoft has a dominant position in the operating systems market, from which the Government's expert concedes it would be very hard to dislodge it. Given this fact, Microsoft could unfairly hold onto this position with aggressive preannouncements of new products in the face of the introduction of possibly superior competitive products. In other words, all participants concede that consumers and OEMs will be reluctant to shift to a new operating system, even a superior one, because it will mean not only giving up on both its old operating systems and applications, but also risking the possibility that there will not be adequate applications to run on the superior product. If this is true, Microsoft can hold onto its market share gained allegedly illegally, even with the introduction of a competitor's operating system superior to its own. By telling the public, "we have developed a product that we are about to introduce into the market (when such is not the case) that is just as good and is compatible with all your old applications", Microsoft can discourage consumers and OEMs from considering switching to the new product. It is for this reason that courts may consider practices outside the complaint. See AT&T 552 F. Supp. at 150. FN 31.
(reference http://www.effable.com/Commentary/sporkin_order.html)
Judge Sporkin was implying that vaporware announcements from a clearly dominant vendor amounted to anti-competitive or monopolistic behavior.
Unfortunately, it may be unethical but it's not necessarily illegal. IIRC MS appealed claiming that Sporkin was biased.
Interestingly, the vaporware allegations played into IBM's antitrust suit back in the 50's as well.
Guess some things will never change.