“Microsoft’s rivals said they would seek tighter limits on the world’s largest software company after a US federal judge approved most of its antitrust settlement with the Justice Department.[…] Sun, one of Microsoft’s harshest critics, said the states should appeal. “ Read the article at News.com.au.
Microsoft Rivals Vow More Battles
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Sun Microsystems, one of Microsoft’s harshest critics, said the states should appeal.
Sun Microsystems, one of the most jealous company on Microsoft dominance, said the states would be forced to appeal with Sun’s money.
AOL Time Warner general counsel Paul T Cappuccio said the ruling made “a weak settlement stronger”.
AOL Time Warner general counsel Paul T Cappuccio said the ruling made AOL more weaker by refusing to give it a unfair advantage.
He said Netscape, AOL Time Warner’s web browser subsidiary, would challenge Microsoft in a pending lawsuit “designed to promote competition and deter further anticompetitive behaviour”.
… although AOL refused to comment on why it took so long to ship a beta with Gecko instead of Internet Explorer, and why it used IE in AOL 8.0.
Microsoft nearly drove Netscape out of business in the late 1990s when it melded its own Explorer web browser into the Windows operating system that controls more than 90 per cent of all personal computers.
Netscape nearly drove itself out of business in the late 1990s when Microsoft melded its own Explorer web browser into the Windows operating system that controls more than 90 per cent of all personal computers.
Sun Microsystems attorney Michael Morris said Sun also will continue to pursue its own lawsuit against Microsoft so the company “does not continue to use its monopoly position to become the gatekeeper of the internet”.
Sun Microsystems attorney Michael Morris said Sun also will continue to pursue its own lawsuit against Microsoft so the company “wouldn’t ruin Sun’s chance in being the gatekeeper of the Internet”.
The court previously found the company had illegally maintained its monopoly over computer operating systems by strong-arming competitors.
The court previously found the company being guilty successful and its competitors not.
The settlement bars Microsoft from reaching exclusive deals that could hurt rivals.
…. while it rivals could make such deals.
And it requires Microsoft to release some technical details to make it easier for rivals’ software to work well with Windows.
And it requires Microsoft to release some technical details to make it easier for rivals’ software to be even more annoying and “in-you-face”.
Chairman Bill Gates called the ruling “a good compromise and good settlement”.
Chairman Bill Gates called the ruling “a good way for Microsoft to get out scot free from a stupid law”.
The nine states and the District of Columbia had argued the settlement wouldn’t adequately protect consumers or give other companies a fair chance to compete with Windows products, which are found on more than 90 per cent of home and business computers.
The nine states and the District of Columbia had argued the settlement wouldn’t adequately protect incompetent competitors that would die anyway without Microsoft so-call “illegal anti-competitive behaviour”.
But few consumers venture so deeply into Windows.
But few consumers could be bothered.
Even computer vendors such as Gateway, which could have switched to a non-Microsoft web browser or music player before selling machines, haven’t bothered to do so.
Even computer vendors such as Gateway, which could have switched to a non-Microsoft web browser or music player before selling machines, couldn’t find any reason to waste time doing so.
In the same service pack, Microsoft also incorporated default support for Sun Microsystems’s Java software, which had been dumped after the companies disagreed on how much Microsoft could change it.
In the same service pack, Microsoft also incorporated its own JVM which would be invalid by 2004. Microsoft refused to include Sun’s JVM or a replica of it into Windows.
You hassle all these other companys for being anti-MS, but wouldn’t MS do exactly the same thing if they didn’t already own the market?
Isn’t this just the nature of capitalism, that companys must compete against each other. Of course competeing by making a better product died ages ago. Maybe marketing is on the way out now too, with this over supply of lawyers legal battles could now bt the way for dominance.
I doubt that. There are many instances where Microsoft could easily invoke this law against its competitors but didn’t. (Besides, Microsoft, in general, don’t have to use this law because though matter what market they are after they are bound to succeed because Microsoft have competent businessmen).
But the minute Microsoft uses this law against its competitor is the minute I would critize it very harshly. 🙂
Nice quote: “with this over supply of lawyers legal battles could now bt the way for dominance. ”
In other words traditional competition is replaced with using government (taxpayers) resources to destroy one’s competitor. The same goes for the current patent office in the USA. Until they can keep up with technology, they better refrain from software patents.
Enforcing the law against competitors? What other company would have a serious antitrust suit? IBM had one earlier, and MSFT took advantage of that unwillingness to compete strongly with desktop OSes.
The terms of the agreement were nearly reasonable though. Breaking up MS is a silly thing to do. But OEMs want to modify Windows installations. They chafe against MSFT restrictions because they aren’t allowed to differentiate themselves on the OS end. They’re basically making Wintendo consoles.
This case is the most striking example in US history showing how money can buy everything in US, it is even bigger than the law.
“I have tried a lot of different things out there and I haven’t seen anything that can run the number of applications that Windows does,” said Ernest Yu.”
Good example of why the case ws a failure – a large part of the reason for the lack of applications for alternative platforms is precisely the business practices of MSFT
I can’t think of a single remedy that could be imposed on MS today which would address their previous unfair business practices. By the time that a case is heard in the courts, the actual technology and platforms that are being debated will have progressed in a way that everything seems nostalgic.
If there’s one thing that’ll keep MS in check, it’s that we have a sucky economy which forces many companies to look at cheaper, non-MS options.
-d.
To compete with Microsoft, Linux and MacOS needs more applications, especially specialized applications. More programmers are needed to create those applications. An open source business needs a good money making business model to pay for those programmers. Until businesses know for sure they can make money in the open source market, it will be slow growth in the open source market.
Or only anti-MS sarcasm is disallowed here?
People here were moderated down for far less irony/sarcasm in MSFT address.
>>>But OEMs want to modify Windows installations. They chafe against MSFT restrictions because they aren’t allowed to differentiate themselves on the OS end.
As long as Dell continues to compete purely on pricing, it really doesn’t matter whether Microsoft has restrictions on modifying Windows installations.
i tend to agree with this. The impact of big corporate money really has shown its force in this case, and with the bush administration in general. Too much power in too few hands is not a good thing, which is part of the reason why the anti-trust laws were invented and part of cause of the US’ current economic woes.
I believe that competition is a good thing and that someone will eventually displace MS, just as desktop computing killed off the IBM monopoly. Nonetheless, as someone mentioned, lawsuits are just as much a part of business these days as dubious MS-style tactics. i don’t think you can really criticize AOL and Sun for being about 10% as irritating as MS.
I guess the lesson from this case is that you should assume that your competition (in this case MS) will do anything to maintain its position. Anything. YOu should assume that fair competition is a school room fantasy and you should be prepared to play dirty.
Ryan… exactly HOW does this have any thing to do with our president? Gotta love the “Evil Greedy Republicans” innuendos that every one loves to throw around. Tell me exactly the things that Bush did to influence this decision. And how does Bush have any more power than any other president did in the past?
I don’t care if you disagree with my political views, but atleast have some founding in FACT and not innuendo.
“This case is the most striking example in US history showing how money can buy everything in US, it is even bigger than the law.”
Not only in the US. Money rules everywhere. The EU lawsuit will end similar, I bet.
HOW does this have any thing to do with our president? Gotta love the “Evil Greedy Republicans”
Mr. Bush appointed mr. ashcroft. Mr. Ashcroft took over the prosecution of the case and the results is a slap on the wrist. The case was very different under clinton. The results really say it all.
As for what greedy republicans have to do with this well they do nothing to oppose the excesesive concentration of power and wealth in the US. in fact they seem to outright promote it. Who shot down legislation to increase policing of corporation that was proposed during the clinton years. The republicans. Who was one of the biggest lobbiest that opposed further policing of corporation. Why hey it just happens to be the new head of teh SEC, as appointed by mr bush. Republicans are puppets of corporations. Mr. bush is a prime example of someone who has lived off corporate neptism his entire life. He owes everything from his shady oil deals to his role in baseball, to the governship, and the presidency to it.
What more proof? look at Cheney’s energy policy, written by enron? Now should we just focus on the republicans. No My point is that there is too much concentration of wealth and corporations are playing too large a role in setting public policy. Are the democrats any better than the “greedy republicans.” Not much if at all. The US is overly influenced by corporations. Democrats and republicans are the flip side of the same coin.
The US, and i am from the US, really needs to change lobbying rules and those regarding campaign contributions. Corporate interests have hijacked this country. The US is just another banana republic but instead of dole fruits, it is run by enron, GE, Haliburton, Texaco, etc, etc.
Mr. Bush appointed mr. ashcroft. Mr. Ashcroft took over the prosecution of the case and the results is a slap on the wrist. The case was very different under clinton. The results really say it all.
Perhaps you should review the appeals court’s ruling to understand why the case changed the way it did. If the prosecution had any influence over the result of the case, it was in ending the case more quickly, rather than in changing the result. The appeals court removed or remanded so much of the case that was built before that a significantly different result was guaranteed, regardless of who was involved in the prosecution.
The rest I’m not even going to bother with, because it’s all undercut by the flipping of blaming everything on the republicans and then saying that the democrats are doing the same thing. Perhaps if you believe that’s the case, you shouldn’t focus so much on one side or the other, but the whole problem. Towards the end you almost sounded reasonable. The reality is simply that campaign finanace is only a small part of a much bigger problem, and one that is unlikely to be addressed by the very people that benefit from it the most. When was the last time anyone voted for a decrease in their own pay? The influence of corporations had as much to do with the start of this case as it had to do with the end of it (if there even was any influence in either part), as it’s more a question of Sun / AOL / Netscape / etc vs Microsoft than the US / states vs. Microsoft.
Yeah I agree with PainKilleR here. But I won’t bother to argue becuase 1. OsNews.com isn’t the place for it. And 2. trying to argue with people such as your self is pointless, as you don’t listen to facts or logic but simply go by innuendo and half truths to make your case.
And for the record, i’m a Libertarian
Huh?
flipping and blaming it on the democrats? Hmm..Why do i undermine my argument by saying both republicans and democrats are run by corporate interests. The only way i’d do that is if you assumed that by bashing republicans, i was supporting democrats. Sorry not the case. The world need not be black and white (repub and democrat) There are shades of grey and even blue out there. Here is the message in another form. Democrats are bad. Republicans are worse. Neither is going to change the US particularly much. Time for a new party.
MS was helped by the fact that there is a republican administration that choose not to pursue that case with much vigor.
flipping and blaming it on the democrats? Hmm..Why do i undermine my argument by saying both republicans and democrats are run by corporate interests. The only way i’d do that is if you assumed that by bashing republicans, i was supporting democrats. Sorry not the case. The world need not be black and white (repub and democrat) There are shades of grey and even blue out there.
You undermine the argument against Republicans by stating that the Democrats are doing the same thing. It makes the argument not one of political alignment, but rather politicians in general. There’s no point in making the distinguishment between parties at that point.
Here is the message in another form. Democrats are bad. Republicans are worse. Neither is going to change the US particularly much. Time for a new party.
You see, I feel the same way, except in reverse: Republicans are bad, Democrats are worse. Perhaps it’s simply because my interests are most often threatened by Democrats rather than Republicans. As for new parties, there are several to choose from, have at it, but perhaps try for voting reform first, since no third party is likely to win an election as long as people believe that the Republicans or Democrats are going to win every election, thereby ‘wasting’ their vote for a 3rd party. At least of the two, the Republican party is the newer (having formed during the civil war as a third party focused mostly on racial issues).
MS was helped by the fact that there is a republican administration that choose not to pursue that case with much vigor.
You can choose to believe what you wish, but the actual case records show that there was significantly less for the Republican administration to work with, thanks in part to the lack of real proof on the part of the previous administration, and to the previous Judge’s lack of proper procedure. The change in how the case was handled after the appeal was precisely why I took the time to read the appeals court’s opinion, and it was very enlightening.
>>You undermine the argument against Republicans by stating that the Democrats are doing the same thing. It makes the argument not one of political alignment, but rather politicians in general. There’s no point in making the distinguishment between parties at that point<<<
news flash>>>>>> There are democracies with more than two parties. Fact is corporate and special interests are calling too many shots, and its does not matter if leadership is republican or democrat.
Judges are political beasts. A lot goes on behind the scenes. My friend, a NYC DA and former city attorney that defended NYC, put it best. He said all judges are are individuals that put a legal spin on their decisions to justify their own biases.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/magazine/20INEQUALITY.html
>>>Judges are political beasts. My friend, a NYC DA and former city attorney that defended NYC, put it best. He said all judges are are individuals that put a legal spin on their decisions to justify their own biases.
Except that the DA’s have much more political ambitions than judges. Look at all the DA’s fighting to file for the death penalty for the DC snipers — all political.
The NY Times article by Paul Krugman (he’s one of my favorite economists, go and read his book “The Age of Diminishing Expectations”) is very informative, but it’s rather off topic with Bill Gates (who is a democrat and votes in favor of the continuation of the estates tax).
Anon: Enforcing the law against competitors? What other company would have a serious antitrust suit? IBM had one earlier, and MSFT took advantage of that unwillingness to compete strongly with desktop OSes.
Rockfeller Standard Oil, Ma Bell, Rambus, among others. There are plenty of antitrust victims (the successful companies). IBM BTW is currently going through a antitrust suite having to do with the way they charge for their mainframe software, BTW.
Besides, IBM’s antitrust problems had to do with the mainframe business. Super computers. Their desktops was barely touch, although they recieved heaps of bad PR, they maintain for years after that their #1 PC maker status.
Anon: OEMs want to modify Windows installations.
All the OEMs are trying to change in the Windows installations is the user interface. That was back in the day when Windows’ UI sucks soooo bad. Now, such a demand is purely economics (getting AOL to pay them to load Netscape, and so on).
croanon: This case is the most striking example in US history showing how money can buy everything in US, it is even bigger than the law.
Sadly true, both sides are literary bought.
Scorched Earth: To compete with Microsoft, Linux and MacOS needs more applications, especially specialized applications.
This is to enter certain niches. Linux in general is attacking the low end corporate market, where it is either simple apps or custom apps (that can be ported) are used.
s_d: is rajan r osnews.com journalist/editor?
Thankfully, no. Seeing the stress Eugenia is going true, I’ll pass.
s_d: People here were moderated down for far less irony/sarcasm in MSFT address.
Moderation is done because a person post a message that goes against the site rules. Not because it is anti-MS.
ryan: I believe that competition is a good thing and that someone will eventually displace MS, just as desktop computing killed off the IBM monopoly.
No, IBM’s monopoly in the mainframe business was broken by HP and Sun, among others.
Besides, I too, believe it or not, believe in competition. Just no pseudo-competition (competition formed by breaking off the legs of the dominant fellow).
Just a analogy. In this country, the fastest runner is Person A. Person B is the distant second, and Person C follows suit. If the government breaks the legs of Person A, would that make Person B and C better and win more victories for the country? Nope.
ryan: Mr. Bush appointed mr. ashcroft. Mr. Ashcroft took over the prosecution of the case and the results is a slap on the wrist. The case was very different under clinton.
Now, just look who funded the Democrat and Republican election campaign in the last two presidencial elections.
Yeah, Clinton was equally corrupt, only it is against Microsoft.
ryan: What more proof? look at Cheney’s energy policy, written by enron?
I remember reading Enron opposed the energy policy, not sure though.
Torrey: And for the record, i’m a Libertarian
Well, if I was a American, I would support the Green Party (well, if you can’t have a 100% capitalistic social and economic system, you are better off going to the far left).
To all the political debators here…
The judge overlooking the apeal was appointed by our great honest (yeah right) and honorable (whahahahah) expresident Bill “Big Willy” Clinton.
Enough said.