U.S. Adds Years To Microsoft's 'Probation' 206
An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. Justice Department has added another two years to its agreement with Microsoft, extending the protocol licensing program that is part of the company's penance for anti-competitive activities. The organization feels Microsoft is providing documentation too slowly to its licensees." From the article: "At one time, the Justice Department and several state Attorneys General had sought a breakup of Microsoft in order to prevent it from abusing its Windows monopoly. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson at one point ordered such a move, though his ruling was later reversed on appeal. Ultimately Microsoft settled with the Department of Justice, agreeing to far more modest restrictions, including the protocol licensing program." Relatedly, regulators have cleared Vista of anti-competitive elements. They examined the OS on concerns an added search box may have given the company a home-field advantage.
Slap On The Wrist: Part Deux (Score:5, Interesting)
Real Issue (Score:4, Interesting)
I dont know if this issue has been looked at by the US or EU but it is much more of a concern to me that MS is activly releasing / selling software that is so insecure to the point that it seems to go out of its way to prevent techies and end users from properly securing it in order to keep (often confidential) data safe from malware, viruses etc.
There is also the wider issue of MS through their lack of a proper security model facilitating the creation and operation of botnets which are used to the detrement of users, businesses and the internet at large.
I use Windows and find it annoying that I need to apply 3rd party apps in an attept to minimise security risks to my computer when the OS maker should have secured the software before release.
Its not that I hate MS for their propriatory nature etc but I find myself trying a few Linux distos in an attmept to find a viable alternative although I am into the frame of mind that for my next computer purchase I will go for a mac depsite the high prices and the fact that I enjoy building my own systems.
If Windows worked properly and had a good security model then I would be happy; I think MS are wasting their time trying to fight the "pirates" and that their real problem (and as such priority) should be to make an OS that is suitable for widespread use. They should secure their software and if they feel the need add an "anti-piracy" function like activation, genuine advantage etc then whatever but make the software safe for people to use first.
(/rant mode)
Parent is right - but no one listens (Score:1, Interesting)
The problem lies not with Microsoft doing anything illegal, or unethical, and even the bundling of software isn't the problem - it's doing it while being popular that's the problem.
Everything Microsoft has done either is being done or was being done not too long ago by other software development companies.
The problem is that Microsoft succeeded by doing this, while the others did not.
Take Apple, for example, they bundle a lot more into their OS than Microsoft does but they aren't even glanced at. Including the 'search' feature that is talked about in TFA pales in comparison to Spotlight in OSX - but no one has a problem with Apple.
Others will raise the fact that "it's different for Microsoft because they have a monopoly". Which is true - but they have a monopoly because their Operating System is designed to work on the most popular systems available. Almost anyone can install Windows on almost any computer.
It's not like Microsoft designs their OS to work only with the machines they build in-house.
In fact, they can't. They'd never be allowed to. They're not allowed to do a lot of things that every other company is allowed to.
Personally I believe it's wrong to impose such huge regulations (that stem from laws that were never meant for this kind of business) on Microsoft. A lot of these regulations are ridiculous (though some do promote competition).
My biggest problem with the continued litigation and dragging down of Microsoft with superfluous rules is that it doesn't help the consumer. These regulations are supposed to help the consumer - but they don't.
There's no excuse for the EU forcing Microsoft to un-bundle Media Player from Vista. I mean, come on, I thought that was the most retarded thing I'd ever heard.
But then they decided a 'search' feature might be too much.
They called Clinton crazy (Score:1, Interesting)
I know Microsoft is evil, anticompetitive, and all, but, honestly, they did bring innovation (and pushed Apple to innovate), they established a de-facto standard for personal computing, and they made owning computers easy and accessible, which stimulated the demand, driving the prices down.
Remember that before MS's rise, Apple was just as bad, given how they got all happy and cosy with their market share, kept the prices up, $5000+
Isn't it sad that any company that is becoming succesfull is automatically punished with breakup threats, union re-negotiation (and unionizing), and even direct legislation, as in the case of Walmart:
(Maryland lawmakers bucked the will of the state's Republican governor and the nation's largest retailer yesterday, voting to become the first state to effectively require that Wal-Mart spend more on employee health care. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
I know that unchecked monopoly is anti-free-market and is thus bad, but there just has to be a middle ground between estabishing monopolies on the one side, and punishing success of the other side.
The issue is NOT bundling (Score:5, Interesting)
I always wondered (Score:2, Interesting)
OK, now I'll stop pretending to be naive. I knew in 2000 that if Bush was elected, his administration would drop the ball on this case. Was I right?
As it turned out, that should have been one of my lesser worries about a Bush administration.