Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 7th May 2006 19:17 UTC
Legal Sometimes, the smallest of things can amaze me. I'm a sucker for details, which probably lies at the base of my slightly obsessive-compulsive traits of keeping things organized, tidy, aligned, and neat. It's great to see some companies are suckers for details too. Unless the details just become too insignificant. Note: Sunday Eve Column. Short, this week, though.
Thread beginning with comment 122066
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Stupid arguement
by youknowmewell on Sun 7th May 2006 22:16 UTC
youknowmewell
Member since:
2005-07-08

Why defend a multi-billion dollar company against the big bad government and users?

Someone argued that MS should be allowed to bundle lots of software with their OS. They should also be allowed to use their OS as a portal to many other services and products like search engines (to generate revenue with ads) and virus-detection software. The arguement is that MS is in a unique position to crush all products that only live because they are filling a vacuum left by MS. Their products are bad, and MS has the chance to destroy the weaklings that sell poor products by bundling quality software with their OS.

That completely ignores the power of MS to bundle poor or mediocre software that can just as easily crush the competition. MS doesn't need to supply quality software to maintain a strangle-hold on a market, it just needs to supply software that is 'good enough'. That's what a monopoly does, it gives 'good enough' software to users, not quality software.

I think others also forgot that MS wasn't ordered to sell a WMP-less OS, they were ordered to supply other competing media-players along with WMP and specifically were told to NOT remove WMP from the OS. An order they flatly ignored.

What's funny is the clash between Free Software ideals and Proprietary Software ideals. The arguements against MS's monopoly apply only because the OS is closed and encourages a monoculture. If MS always played nice and ALWAYS had to compete on the merits of their technology than they couldn't have a monopoly.

This is why CHOICE is so important to Free Software. Choice breeds a diverse environment of software and spurs competition. Choice hates a monopoly, and loves good software.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Stupid arguement
by Marcellus on Mon 8th May 2006 06:38 in reply to "Stupid arguement"
Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

I think others also forgot that MS wasn't ordered to sell a WMP-less OS, they were ordered to supply other competing media-players along with WMP and specifically were told to NOT remove WMP from the OS. An order they flatly ignored.

I suggest that you provide proof of your statement.
Various sources (including wikipedia, which you may or may not see as trustworthy source) have it as MS was ordered to provide a version of Windows without WMP.

Or are you perhaps saying that what MS writes at
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/legal/eudecision/faq.asp
is a bunch of lies?

Reply Parent Score: 2