EU Considering Another MS Antitrust Suit 323
mesozoic writes "Yahoo! News is reporting that the European Union is considering *another* antitrust suit against Microsoft, this time having to do with anticompetitive behavior in the market for mobile phone software. While I haven't seen any signs Microsoft is going to dominate the industry here in the States, cell phones are a much bigger deal in Europe, so I can understand why they'd be nervous."
microsoft phone (Score:2, Funny)
Basically its an small OS that runs on the cellphone so the user has MS messaging, etc. I'm sure Microsoft makes it plenty anti-competitive somehow. They're good at that.
reason for suit (Score:5, Interesting)
The
This phone uses passport to authenticate users on phone-based services. This allows business users, etc to easily tie their mobile phones to their central
My question is, where's the Linux based Open Source phones?
Re:reason for suit (Score:2, Redundant)
Anti-trust law kicks in when you have a monopoly, and then try to use the advantages of that monopoly product to try to force your way into a marketplace where you're supposed to compete. You have to face your competitors on a level playing field.
Re:reason for suit (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but Microsoft has already been convicted in the US for using their monopoly power to stifle competition. I think that this conviction in itself makes news of similar suits in other juristictions and other technologies quite understandable.
Personally I feel as a computer professional that Microsoft's monopoly has done a lot to prevent new ideas and technologies from reaching the market, and has in fact hurt the IT industry considerably. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to me that the remidies that are in place are sufficient to reverse this damage.
Perhaps the EU will be more succesful at coming up with a solution. I hope so.
Re:reason for suit (Score:3, Informative)
Hardware: * 206MHz Intel SA-1110 StrongARM system-on-chip processor * Memory: 32MB or 64MB RAM; 32MB Flash * 16-Bit color, 320x240 pixel LCD with backlight * RS232 serial port * USB port, configurable as either 'host' or 'client' device * Bluetooth wireless LAN * GSM/GPRS cellular communication * Biometric fingerprint sensor * Size: 5.4 x 3.1 x 0.8 in. * Weight: 8.8 oz. Software: * Linux operating system (2.4.x kernel) * GUI environment and PDA app suite based on Trolltech Qtopia and Opera browser * IPSec VPN protocol & security algorithms * IBM DB2E database and Websphere software * Power management to extend battery life
Re:reason for suit (Score:2)
Innovation (Score:2, Flamebait)
Will Microsoft Ever Stop? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is to anti-trust law as Iraq is to dearmming resolutions?
Re:Will Microsoft Ever Stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there are a lot of countries around the world that are nervous about the behavior that came out during the antitrust trial. They see Microsoft gaining more and more political power in the US (the trial taught Microsoft that its stupid for a company of their size to not 'play the game' in Washington) and they are worried that a major part of their infrastructure will be dominated by a US company. It goes to countries feeling threatened so much by Microsoft that they will go so far as to spend money to develop alternatives, or mandate use of open source, or in this case - they bring antitrust laws to bear on the company. To not take Microsoft as a serious threat to their countries would be folly, as MS could simply double licensing fees at will and cause government expenses to skyrocket (or possibly even more nefarious things like NSA backdoors or security holes causing massive problems for governments).
In the end hopefully this will simply serve to give us a more balanced computing environment. I would hate for Microsoft to simply be exterminated - thats not what we need no matter how bad the company has been. What we need is healthy vibrant competition in the computing marketplace - at all levels including the ones that are currently dominated by Microsoft.
I fully agree. (Score:4, Informative)
ONLY fair and open markets will bring vibrant competition.
And, that has been effectively removed from many markets as a direct result of illegal Microsoft Corporation activity.
You want to develop a better browser? Only if you do not want to be paid.
You want to develop a better media player? Only if you do not want to be paid.
You want to develop a better messaging system? Only if you do not want to be paid.
Right now there a many key markets that everyone who reads
And, why is that?
It is the direct result of illegal Microsoft activity.
Developing a good product is not illegal. Forcing 400,000,000 people to buy it is.
Only idiots think applications are operating systems because that would force the sale. And, only idiots think that a branded product (assuming it is even wanted or needed by consumers) should be forced upon any of them.
Salesman try to convince customers to buy their brand.
Idiots lie like hell and demand that consumers be forced to buy it. And, if you bought any OS from Microsoft in the last 6 years or so, you were in fact forced to buy a number of key applications. And, you paid cash money for them. That is a fact.
And, because of that (if you are a developer) you have been illegally precluded from those markets. Even the idiots at the DOJ know that is true. They wanted to preclude you.
Microsoft will never stop (Score:2)
Why?
Because they now know that ignoring them for 5-6 years is highly profitable and the chances are excellent that a stupid and ignorant DOJ will grant to them the monopoly markets they gain illegally.
That will remain true until "stockholders" demand a different conduct.
If SUN gets a billion or so judgment it will not change.
If SUN gets a Sun Compliant JVM distributed with the Microsoft OS, it will not change.
If BE gets a billion, it will not change.
Even if AOL gets 10 billion in damages, it will not change.
It will only change when and if the courts order Microsoft to sell separate products separately and cease illegal bundling and commingling.
But, as we have seen the appellate courts can find commingling to be illegal yet the DOJ (as stupid and ignorant as they are) will refuse to prevent even proven violations from occuring.
I can not think as anything as stupid as what the DOJ has done. The DOJ has endorsed illegal activity AFTER the appellate court ruled on the issues. And, the illegal acts continue to harm consumers and the computer software industry.
And, they know it was stupid. They had to misrepresent what the law actually is in order to rationalize their decisions.
Fortunately, the DOJ only decides what cases they will bring contrary to the claim from those idiots that they decide antitrust policy for the US Government. They simply do not. They only decide what the executive branch will enforce or ignore. And, there is a very big difference.
In the US, Congress decides how the antitrust laws will read (not the DOJ). And, the courts interpret them (again, not the DOJ).
In fact, the DOJ is only given authority to enforce those laws to permit a more efficient legal system whereby violators can be kept in check without an enormous number of private antitrust law suits mucking up the courts. But, guess what? The DOJ refuses to act. And, the result is that the States try to take over some of the action. And, consumers, AOL, SUN, Burst and BE have to file their own private law suits anyway.
And, since this article relates to the EU activity, the EU must then also act to make certain that their laws are not violated as well. The EU does not decide what the US laws will restrict. But, they do decide which products can be sold in their market without being illegal. And, as was the case in the IBM antitrust case, the EU ends up being the only effective player. That may turn out to be true again. Only this time consumers and a number of major corporations are also suing for financial damanges and additional injunctions.
If you are a software developer, you should by all means be pulling for AOL in their law suit. That suit may open up an enormous number of software markets now effectively closed to you.
Re:Will Microsoft Ever Stop? (Score:2, Informative)
Nor do I accept your premise that antitrust law was used to reward or punish M$ for giving or failing to give campaign contributions to either party.
The Clinton Administration prosecuted M$ because they believed antitrust law promotes and protects competition. The Clinton Administration's prosecution became more, not less, vigorous with time.
The Cheney Administration believes in the "Chicago School" of antitrust which - after you peel away the rhetoric - holds that the purpose of antitrust law is to increase the net wealth of society. (Actually, I believe Cheney, Bush et al. are plutocrats, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here.)
M$ clearly engaged in anticompetitive behavior, but it is not clear that the net wealth of society has been reduced. Consequently, Cheney's people don't believe the M$ did anything wrong, even if the conduct was illegal.
It may seem unimportant, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It may seem unimportant, (Score:4, Insightful)
In Europe, at least. In the United States, they are still welcome to roll over any competition however they may please, subsidizing their massively unprofitable divisions with monopoly money (the real stuff, not the multicoloured paper you get from Parker Brothers) from Office and Windows.
Uh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now the Commission is checking that and perhaps will consider it when determing restrictions if m$ is found guilty in the other antitrust suit - which sounds reasonable imho.
jm2
It has already begun (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft's licensing agreement for its phone OS is like an echo from a past 5 years before the US found MS guilty of abusing its monopoly. Manufacturers and operators are allowed exactly zero options in changing the look and feel of the phones they sell. No logoes, no additional programs, it's their OEM desktop OS with mandatory Internet Explorer and MSN icon routine all over again.
Apropos Internet Explorer, the dingy browser that MS ships on their phones has nothing but the name in common. It doesn't even support frames. Why anyone would want precious phone memory wasted on that is beyond me.
IE started with zero penetration (Score:5, Interesting)
For the most part violations of antitrust law have little to do with how successful your illegal acts are. Or even if they were necessary.
There exceptions such as charges of attempted monopolization where somewhat in excess of 50% of the market is the benchmark for that charge. And, that is why Microsoft has not yet been convicted of attempted monopolization of the browser market. It is not because they have not tried that. And, it is not because they have not done it. It is only because the appellate court could only review the facts as of the time of the trial. And, at that time 50% or so was the magic number.
But, the issue here for the EU is the use of the OS monopoly to force the use of other technology in a number of other markets. The EU is about to announce their decision in regard to the media player and server tie-ins. This article just points out that they have a heads on possible illegal acts in regard to the cell phone services as well. But, do not worry if Microsoft does not in fact try to make an illegal tie with the cell phone services, nothing the EU does will affect them.
The EU is certainly not going to penalize MS because of what they might do. But, making sure Microsoft does not violate the laws again in the same manner as they clearly have to date is just good planning.
If you are one of those who claim the browser wars are over so get over it, then you must agree to prohibit Microsoft from even thinking about repeating that kind of illegal act. The browser wars are not over. It is not even a war. Fair and open competition is still precluded by illegal acts. But, any market can recover once illegal acts cease.
Do not worry. If each consumer has to pay $35 for IE or leave it at the store, a very high percentage will leave it or buy another brand. But, as long as the DOJ also favors forcing the sale of IE upon everyone, there will be no competition. The monopoly in browsers will be maintained indefinately. Or, at least until the monopoly OS goes away.
Re:Uh. (Score:2)
They arent suing anybody.. it's an investigation. They got some complaints from competitors (Nokia e.a.) that MS is using their standard tactics of bullying, screwing with standards etc. and they're investigating. You'd rather that they wait untill MS extually succeeds in pulling the same thing they did with the browser and then get this joke of a sentence they got from the last trial?
Re:Uh. (Score:2)
As opposed to the US wanting to bomb Iraq because of some weapons Iraq might have. I'm sure Microsoft would rather be sued than bombed...
I forget what the legal term for this is, but I think this guy has a big stick up his ass.
Maybe he can compare sticks with GW Bush
Besides, Stinger has 0 market penetration right now.
Who wants a mobile phone named after a man portable SAM or a device police use to stop cars?
Maybe we should wait until things are much too late and things are crippled to SMS viruses. Thing is that people won't just accept this, because they'll know how it didn't happen in 2002.
Re:Uh. (Score:2)
The last bit probably should be more like "asking them nicely, hoping they will clean up the mess. If they don't ask them nicely again".
good. (Score:3, Insightful)
And in other news... (Score:4, Funny)
And in furture news, "Microsoft Found 'Not-Guilty' by EU."
At least we'll already know the error messages. (Score:5, Funny)
So what will it change? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So what will it change? (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but if you're suggesting that Nokia phones allow emergency calls even when the keypad is locked, it might be a good idea to look at that stats once again.
Something tells me you'll get a lot more calls.
microsoft cellphones? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:microsoft cellphones? (Score:2)
Re:microsoft cellphones? (Score:2)
With you knowing nothing about it until you get the bill. Which also includes a fee for every "match"
What for? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a nokia 5160, and I can place calls with it. I can receive calls with it. I can receive text messages too. Shit, I can play nibbles on the damn thing!
WHY would I want more than that on a phone?
I've got a computer for internet access - it stays at my desk. Contrary to popular belief, checking
I have heard the excuse that some poeple want to check and reply to their email on the go - that's what a secretary is for. If not a secretary, there are a plethora of alternatives - Laptops, Wireless/Wired palm/pocketce devices and internet booths spring to mind.
Convince me we need smartphones. I just don't see it.
Re:What for? (Score:2)
When my boss saw my Zaurus he asked if it had a camera & cell phone. I told him no ... and it didn't wipe my ass either.
Re:What for? (Score:2)
Re:What for? (Score:2)
A camera probably doesn't need to be high resolution, it would probably be comparable to my dad's old VGA resolution Mavica. If one needs a good camera, buy a good camera, but I think history has proven that something that is "good enough" will do the job despite obvious improvements that a better product would have.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What for? (Score:2, Funny)
To do any less is simply theft. Just because you "don't need" something, that's no excuse to avoid buying it.
Do you think companies hire employees and develope products for free?
Re:What for? (Score:2)
How about a camera?
And music, do you listen the latest albums?
and so on.. tv, videocamera, vibrator, etc.
Why the hell should I carry around 10 different devices when technology allows to put them all in one package.
What is happening is not smartPHONES but technology integration. 70 years ago people didn't have radios in their cars and many thought just like you that 'I can listen to radio at home, why should there be one in my car'. Nowadays I really don't know anyone who still thinks that radios don't belong in cars - do you?
Re:What for? (Score:2)
Oh, my grandpa disagrees - he didn't know anyone that thought putting radios in cars was anything but a great idea.
Re:What for? (Score:2)
For some reason that reminds me of some things I have heard in the past:
"I get newspapers, why should I read news on the Internet?"
"Why send an e-mail when I could send a real letter?"
"I have regural phone, I don't need a cell-phone"
Nobody is forcing you to buy smartphones. You could use your 5160 for years to come. But I bet that in 10 years you will be wondering "How on earth did we manage with those phones 10 years ago?!". Every single time when some new technology emerges, there are some luddites arguing "Bah! We don't need that! We have xxxxxxxx that does the same thing already!". And in few years time that new technology has entrenched itself and everyone is using it.
You say that we don't need cell-phones for email, since we can use laptops or PDA's for that. Convince me: why should I carry big and heavy laptop with me just to check email, if I could do it with a 80gram device that fits in my pocket? Why should I carry a PDA for that matter, if I could use just one device instead?
Re:What for? (Score:2)
These examples do not hold.
All of the inventions or dovelopments that displaced these examples showed great improvement over the former. Electric light, for example, cheaper and cleaner. Horseless carrages, the same, plus faster.Pointy sticks and wet clay... I have no idea what you're talking about there.
So far the only arguement for smartphones that I'll accept is the 'get a GSM one and put the chip in a different phone when apropriate' one.
Still, I don't see the cost or convenience features of truly new tech.
Re:What for? (Score:2)
A reusable writing tablet. Considering some of the chemicals in the pens (and that they run out) a whiteboard might not qualify as an improvement.
Interesting... (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I believe that MS is an abusive monopoly and that the DoJ rolled. I also believe that the States blew the retry of the penalty phase.
What a bunch of BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a bunch of BS (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What a bunch of BS (Score:5, Insightful)
If
Crap. The reason I'm never thrilled with Microsoft is that they present a lose-lose situation. Sure, they should be allowed to "innovate" to thier hearts content - everyone is even before the law, after all. Everytime they do, however, they seem to desolate the compeditive landscape by nuking everything with thier Windows-leverage bomb.
Bleah. 'Nuff typing - I'm going back to my bottle of rye...
Soko
if no illegal acts, no problem (Score:2)
If MS did not bundle IE, the DOJ would never have filed its law suit.
If MS had honored the consent decree, the DOJ would never have filed its law suit.
There are a lot of ways by which products and services can be tied in an illegal manner. If MS does none of those, no problem. Right?
If you do not see how MS could use or is using their monopolies it force its way into the cell phone market, then either they are not violating any laws or you do not see it or understand it.
Microsoft monopolizing AGAIN... (Score:2, Troll)
This is fine for competition, except Microsoft has been known to leverage their monopoly power to expand it to other businesses. What gives them the right to prepackage their PocketPC software on other companies' phones? It's absolutely dispicable.
What the EU [europe.co.uk] claims is that Microsoft is using their .NET Passport authentication to tie customers into a spiralling frenzy of tie-ins and products, such as Excel and Age of Empires. More and more of our consumers are being forced into purchasing these telephones and using them to converse with their cohorts while Bill Gates and Co. can listen in on their conversations. These consumer terrorists are forced to browse their email through Microsoft's scrupulous Pocket Outlook for their telephones and MSN Messenger for their SMS replacements.
In short, I just hope that the EU can finally bring down the Micro$oft empire that threatens competition in a market trying to be free. Their behavior is absolutely disgusting and unwarranted in a free market system, which is exactly why the EU must do everything they can to bring them down, because Ashcroft won't.
Re:Microsoft monopolizing AGAIN... (Score:2)
MS doesn't. They have salespeople who go to the mobile phone folks, and conivnce them to buy the MS PocketPC stuff.
Phone/PDA combos are a fairly natural synergy (how many high-power computing devices do you REALLY need in your pocket?), and MS moving PocketPC over to the phone makes sense.
But, really, I don't see how they have a monopoly. Palm still licenses Palm OS, and it competes with PocketPC in just about every area PocketPC is in. It's not like Macintosh, where Macs are to "PCs" like motorcycles are to cars; most of the functionality of a PDA (or a phone) is built right in, and neither MS or Palm are selling their own phones. (Palm is even running their OS divison as a seperate company)
Re:Microsoft monopolizing AGAIN... (Score:5, Informative)
The companies that have been using the Windows Smartphone [microsoft.com], now known as Windows CE
To conclude, there are many companies that have decided to use the Microsoft alternative, but more and more of these are ditching it in favour of the more commonly used Nokia os.
Re:Microsoft monopolizing AGAIN... (Score:3, Interesting)
Needless to say I am annoyed with this. The registration process does not work with Mozilla 1.2b (must I use IE? where will it end?) - and the instant messaging services via email addresses does not work unless I sign up with Microsoft - and provide them with all necessary registration data: name, date-of-birth, gender, zip code, occupation, etc.
I need a Microsoft passport id for installing Windows XP. I have an MSDN subscription through work - and I need a passport id in order to use that effectively. I need a passport id to have access to Hotmail (which I don't want) and the instant messaging functionality on my phone. And probably more such 3rd party services coming in the future. All of this stuff can be traced and linked to a single on-line identity.
This is too much information to be providing Microsoft (and the "partners" they share it with). I was "slammed" here on my cell phone service. I would have picked a different wireless provider if I knew I would need a passport ID in order to use the Verizon Wireless services. I don't like Microsoft's Big Brother-like passport concepts - and don't want to put my credentials in a single Mircosoft-owned basket.
I suspect that this is what is happening with other cell phone users with different companies - both here and outside the US. It is all part of Microsoft's grand plot to track us all - not just on the web, but through our cell phones, and who knows what's next? On-line banking?
I can see why people are annoyed. All power to the EU here.
haiku (Score:4, Funny)
still, the EU is not right
to try to fight them
If no complaint has
been raised by MS victims
who're they to fight?
Arbitrarily
picking fights over all things
is not the best plan.
too little, too late? (Score:2, Insightful)
However, with the reluctance of companies to participate in the "Safe Harbor" provisions that enable a firm to side-step the privacy laws in Europe, and the general move of European governments toward Open-Source solutions, Microsoft and the
So...pass the popcorn and step up to get good ring-side seats to this one in the next few years.
Worrying (Score:4, Insightful)
It's far more likely that Monti (EU Competition Commissioner) is worried that the current *real* antitrust investigation into Microsoft will either not find anything or that the remedies will be knocked over in court (like most of his cases) - and he wants to have his distraction tactics ready. This way at least he can say "Forget about *that* one, we've got a whole new case against Microsoft to spend years and millions on!" and Slashdot can happily argue about that one till it looks like falling; when he can start a new investigation, probably into Microsoft failing efforts to dominate the games console market. And then there's the effort (with Media Centre) to take over the TV and stereo market.....
This makes no sense... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This makes no sense... (Score:2)
In practice using a proprietary protocol whould tend to mean less secure, assuming it's secure at all.
antitrust violations depend upon monopoly markets (Score:4, Interesting)
It was the illegal use of the OS monopoly that gave MS the monopoly in browsers.
And, it is the illegal bundling of IE with the OS that will maintain it as long as the OS is dominant.
You will buy IE again and again no matter what you think, want or need.
You may not like AOL, but the AOL law suit is about the only hope that fair and open markets will exist on the Microsoft platforms until such as they are eliminated.
The stupid DOJ wants a monopoly in browsers for Microsoft. The DOJ wants a monopoly in media players for Microsoft too.
not my rules ... Congress wrote them (Score:2)
YOUR claim to be able to buy a Chevy is of no value with the fact of the matter is that everyone must first buy a FORD.
Assuming that were the case with automobiles, that is. It is not with cars, as we all know. It is with browsers, as we all know.
But, some will still argue that being forced to buy a FORD each time you shop for a car is okay because you are free to buy a Chevy afterwards. But, then those people do not even believe themselves.
if you buy Windows you paid cash for IE ..no choic (Score:2)
If you bought from Microsoft anytime after the very first release of Win95 you were in fact forced to buy IE.
There is no other choice permitted by Microsoft Corporation. PERIOD. YOU MUST IN FACT PAY CASH FOR IE IF YOU BUY WINDOWS.
Is it impossible to buy a PC without Windows?
No. You can do that. Walmart will sell you one. And, many white box boys were sell you one. And, you can buy the parts too.
But, lying about paying cash for IE when you buy Windows is just an outright lie because it is not possible to do otherwise and has not been possible since the very first issue of Win95. That means for the last 6 years it was impossible to do.
And, that is why Microsoft now has a monopoly position in browsers.
major killer applications are not functions (Score:2)
A browser is not a function of an OS. It performs absolutely no OS function at all.
Microsoft did not help themselves. They violated federal antitrust laws to force all consumers to buy IE.
It simply does not matter what Netscape did.
When Microsoft decided to force all customers to buy IE, the illegal bundling perfected the attempt to monopolize the browser marketplace.
You do not have the right to commit murder even if the victum has cancer as you falsely claim. It is still murder.
but you paid cash money for IE anyway (Score:2)
Even Microsoft says so.
Microsoft says 20% of the price you paid went toward "unearned revenue" which they say includes IE.
You may not have paid a cash amount for Mozilla (although you can), but you were literally forced to do so with Win 2K because Microsoft gives you no other choice.
If you buy Win 2K, you buy IE.
And, if you want to claim it is okay to be forced to buy a product as long as you claim you do not use it, I have a lot of stuff to sell you. Why should Gates be the only one to screw you?
This is based on suspicion (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all in the news it says that based on the suspicion that the software giant is trying to leverage its dominance of PC operating systems into the market for mobile phone software which basically means that there is a suspicion and there is no hardcore proof. The news does (actually can) not explain which Microsoft policies cause Microsoft to use its strength on Windows platform to take over the mobile phone market. The only credible issue is the "Titanium" software, but it is not the job of Microsoft to provide the best integration for Windows with competitors' devices. Competitiors has to spend time to build quality software, instead of complaining. This is a software engineering problem. If you can not write better software than Microsoft, then don't complain.
There is also a claim by the lawyer (anonymous coward) that Microsoft is threatining mobile phone operators, but he/she fell short of explaining how, when, which? If you think about it you also realize that Microsoft can not threaten neither mobile phone operators not manufacturers. Tell me how Microsoft can threaten Nokia? Nokia does not sell PCs. There is no way Microsoft can threaten these companies.
To sum up again this news is totally bogus, it is for our amusement, making up stories about Microsoft and laughing at each others' jokes. Have fun
Re:This is based on suspicion (Score:2, Insightful)
fact is, by reading your post, i can only come to two conclusions.
1. you make your living as an M$ geek
2. big brother has you.
an m$ world would have every last user stick their credit card into a slot to boot up, and charge by the second for licensing. don't matter if its a mobile phone, a PC or a game box. if you're in favor of M$ taxes, go right ahead, walk down that road.
the typical mobile phone has only the most important personal information stored on it. letting a company that has a history of invading the privacy of users has little place in that equasion.
since u probably don't know, the EU has these things called PRIVACY LAWS.
besides, i'm not particularly worried by M$ just yet myself, nobody really wants a cellphone with a fan that crashes everytime you get a phone call while you surf the web. . . . .
Any signs... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, did you see any signs when Microsoft started a browser war against the de facto standard Netscape browser back in the old days? I mean, who would have believed back then that Microsoft would be able to beat Netscape in browser war?
----
Re:Any signs... (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't matter. You can't sue for something someone might do. I might get drunk and kill your daughter in a drunk driving incident, but until I do so, you cannot sue me. I might slander you, or steal your wife, or do any of a number of things that would be grounds for a lawsuit, but until I actually do them, you cannot sue me. Same goes for Microsoft. Just because they might get a monopoly in the mobile market doesn't mean the EU has the right to preemptively sue them (never mind the fact that having a monopoly in and of itself is not a bad thing at all, only abusing it is).
Then again, let the EU try. They'll lose, because they can't prove Microsoft has done anything wrong at this point.
Re:Any signs... (Score:2)
Litmus test? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's recent Form 10-Q [sec.gov] shows that, between June 1 and September 30, 2002, Microsoft lost $33M (U.S. dollars) on revenues of $17M in this part of their business. (Look for the second occurance of "CE/Mobility", the one under "Three months ending September 30" and "2002," about halfway down the page.) In other words, they spent a total of about $50M (in three months!), and lost almost three dollars for every dollar they spent.
This isn't proof by any means; but it's one interesting test in trying to decide Microsoft's corporate intentions.
P.S.: This rate may represent Microsoft scaling back their efforts! From June 1 to September 30, 2001, Microsoft lost $48M on revenues of $14M; so a total expenditure of $62M, or more than four dollars for ever one they made. Remember that Windows CE devices started shipping in early 1997; this is not a new business for them, but one that's almost six years old.
alot of you seem to be missing the point... (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Here, Microsoft has been hit with just about every sort of suit imaginable, because everyone knows they have been pushing the limits of their monoplolistic powers. We are just hoping one of these suits will finally give them what they deserve.
This is just EU protectionism - EU - Screw U (Score:2, Insightful)
Screw the EU - they have an 80 page regulation for the steering wheel on a bus. And they think MS is bad?
Re:This is just EU protectionism - EU - Screw U (Score:2, Insightful)
Also mobiles are apparently much more pervasive in our society. Nearly all kids have them by the time they hit high school (11 or 12), and although we havn't adopted 2.5G and now 3G mobile technology at the rate the mobile companies had hoped, the upgrade trend is most definently continuing and relentless.
It's not unusual nowdays for people to be carry around mobiles with substantial colour screens, embedded JVMs (with downloadable java games increasinly popular), a camera and software including pims, calculators, web browser, alarm clocks and as much else as the manufacturer can embed. Mobile data comms are already just about as fast as desktop, in the next few years they will be faster for most people. It will only be another three or four years before the mobile 'phone' as turned into the truly ubiqutous personal communication device more important to most people than their desktop computer.
So put this trend together with european thinking about monopolies and it's not at all suprising that the EU is very interested in regulating so we are not under MicroSoft's ubiqutous thumb.
The fight continues (Score:3, Interesting)
Many people accuse me of "bashing" Microsoft because I spout dire disdain against the company. Do these people forget what Microsoft has done? Do any of these people realize how much needless costs Microsoft imposes upon companies? DOes any of these people understand how far they have set us back? Has any of these people ever had to sit across a table from a squad of Microsoft sales people and listen to them out right lie to your management, selling them "solutions" that you know will force your company to can two or three good people a year from now just to afford it?
Microsoft will go down in history as one of the great evils of our capitalistic age. Microsoft taxes the world more then the old "Trust" could have ever hoped to. Microsoft is unabashed about whose pockets they will drain againt their will, or what tactics they will stoop to [gatesfoundation.org] in order to gain a share of a market. Just as car salesman pitches a deal that is "too good to be true" to a blue collar worker, Microsoft conceals itself in the garb of a sheep and hunts the third world with the ploy of "gifts".
We need to knuckle up. If they win everything will continue to change for the worse. Before long it will be too late to fight, and we will all be asking ourselves "why the hell didn't we fight them when we had the chance?"
Microsoft Mobile Internet Business Unit (Score:2)
Sendit's primary product was ICSA - Internet Cellular Smart Access, a modular Windows/SQL Server-based program suite designed to give cellphone operators the ability to offer their subscribers e-mail via SMS, POP3, IMAP4, webmail or a proprietary message retrieval protocol. We also had an Outlook CE plugin and did development both in Content Push technology and, of course, WAP. Microsoft re-branded the place MIBU [microsoft.se] (see Subject line) and pumped a lot of money and resources into it, hired lots of developers and did a lot of work - but earlier this year, the entire unit was disbanded [keffo.nu]. Many of the best people had already left - some went to other parts of Microsoft but most had left completely.
This was Microsofts first attempt to leverage into the mobile phone business, but not the last. This was at a time when cell phone operators were invulnerable cash-cows and everybody wanted in at the server side as well as the handset side of the industry. Microsoft does not give up. They may back down and re-group, but they do not give up.
Eu law is different than the US antitrust law. (Score:5, Informative)
Eu law in the other hand is all about keeping a level playing field among the companies themselves. Microsoft has more to fear from that law. Many European companies have been slapped with very big fines for much smaller offences than MS have made.
Then again i dont know if we should worry. All MS can succed in if they continue alienating their customers and locking people into Windows etc. is a total fork of the internet. Geeks on one side on open systems and Windows users locked into MSN and NET servers. I dont know if that should be so bad. I could live with it but could MS?
Re:Eu law is different than the US antitrust law. (Score:2)
Whilst at the same time trying to claim that corporations are people. Which would logically make Microsoft a serial killer...
EU vs. US Part2. (Score:4, Insightful)
While the quality and hindsight of most of the anti-EU posts suggest both an almost complete lack of knowledge of what the EU or it's member states are, the posts sugesting protectionism might very well have a point. As we all know, when it comes down to business, the first priority of any government wishing to remain in power in the next elections is to ensure that jobs are held, the local industry does well and that, if possible, there is a net inflow of money into the state/area/country/region. This means that in practice the US President as well as the EU Commision will backstab one another and reneg on all treaties if needs be in order to ensure the wellfare of the own economies. The same applies to Russia, China, India and most other places, including Iraq when it comes to oil.
Why do you think so many non-US countries' governments are switching or considering to switch to Linux or other alternatives? So that, for the first time in a long time, there will actually be growth in the local software industry. Microsoft has an enormous lock on software in the developed world and there is a net outflow of money from those countries to the US, since MS is an American company. Nokia and partly also Ericsson, have the major part of the cell-phone market in Europe and are European companies. I very much doubt that anyone who has any say whatsoever in the EU wants another MS monpoly in another market. The Desktop PC market domination by MS is bad enough, given MS's behaviour.
I think the EU Commision will do anything legally within it's power in order to prevent MS gaining a monopoly there as well. MS has a lot of political influence in the US (see the recent trial outcome) and in developing countries where it can (and has done in Peru, South Africa and India) influence politicians with MS pocket change; MS loses more money on the XBox than it invested in South Africa, but the sum was enormous for South African standards. Your US President, GW Bush, did the same to the EU and others with his Steel import tarifs.
This is the EU's answer.
Re:EU vs. US Part2. (Score:2)
Also no sane government wants foreigners able to hold them to ransom. Especially where "gunboat diplomacy" isn't an option.
Re:why waste the money? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:why waste the money? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:why waste the money? (Score:2, Insightful)
Pretty big hole in your little argument there.
Re:why waste the money? (Score:2, Interesting)
It doesn't work.
Wouldn't the lawsuit fees be better spent switching from M$ products?
No.
Re:why waste the money? (Score:5, Insightful)
what about just leaving them alone and trying to sell their products?
I love MS as much as the next guy here on /., and while I partially agree with this suit, the market still has the final word to say.
I submitted a while ago a story [nwsource.com] about Microsoft's attempt at interactive TV here in Portugal. It got rejected, but the point here is that it failed. Microsoft's testbed for iTV failed because the problems we have today with windows translated to the same problems with the MS iTV's software. The service was also a bit expensive (whether or not related to the MS tax), the set top box crashed a lot, and few saw the benefits of iTV. We are a bit behind europe in smoe areas, but in technology we are at about the same level so it was not a people's problem. (in a country of 10 million there are about 7 or 8 million cellphones; our ATM system allows for any kind of bank operation in any bank's ATM from withdrawing money to buying train tickets to paying the telephone or electricity bills; we have a nation-wide non-stop automated system for paying the highway toll).
MS failed because of the product they were trying to sell wasn't what the people wanted, they wanted to make us use the TV as a computer but we didn't. When they come with this cellphoneOS, let the people decide. Say what you want about mobile internet, games, messengers, digital built-in cameras, and all the rest of the crap, that while make cool geek toys (which I like to play with), the vast majority just wants to call someone.
And it's not going to be easy to de-throne the appeal Nokia has.
Microsoft may be the monopoly in computer operating systems and Office suits, but in other ponds they are the little fish.
Re:why waste the money? (Score:2, Interesting)
Frankly, what else is it meant to do when the American government is protecting ITS firms? You can't sit back and let yours die. What needs to happen is the US government needs to get a clue!
Re:why waste the money? (Score:2, Informative)
Upholding the law went by the boards then ? (Score:2, Insightful)
You have given up on upholding (antitrust) laws and correcting unfair competition then? Do you mean that the law should be upheld only against weak infractors?
Do I detect an opportunistic attitude and a lack of backbone here?
Re:It'll never fly. (Score:3, Insightful)
We're talking here about going after Microsoft for a different set of violations in a different country. They get no slack in that case.
Re:It'll never fly. (Score:2)
Re:It'll never fly. (Score:4, Informative)
well, I totally disagree with this current lawsuit, but double jeopardy doesn't come into account.
Double Jeopordy refers to criminal action, all these anti trust suits are civil action (based on prior criminal acts tho)
Also, even if it was tried under criminal code, the suit is for a seperate market, which would presume seperate actions, which would be triable. (Just because you get off on a murder rap doesn't mean you can murder someone else for free).
Thirdly, Double Jeopordy is primarily a US thing (though much of europe has it as well. However, UK recently introduced legistlation weakening or canceling double jeopordy (Though I think it hasn't been signed yet, and may have been killed in process)
see : http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:JeAJHIKSZIQC
Re:MS doesnt even has a marketshare (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides, if you read the article, you will see that it talks about "suspicions" about Microsoft's plans, not its current market share in mobile phones. The EU fears that mobile phones will become like IBM-compatible PCs - commodity hardware all running the same software. Which, given Microsoft's resources and competitive strategies, seems like a very likely scenario.
Re:MS doesnt even has a marketshare (Score:2)
You mean comparatively cheap, commodity items? I can imagine how that might trouble a number of the large European mobile phone manafacturers! Got to keep the systems proprietary, custom, and expensive. Won't please someone think of the profit margins...err...children!
Perhaps the recent American innovation of a corporation's right to profit has been taken up by the EU too?
Re:MS doesnt even has a marketshare (Score:2)
How long the US will let that continue to happen before either stopping the practice in the EU or doing the same for Boeing we don't know.
The US government pours money into Boeing, typically via The Pentagon. Are you saying that the same is happening with Microsoft.
Re:drop 'em (Score:3, Informative)
Neither KDE/Linux nor MacOSX users are forced to use bash, so your plan is doomed to fail...
Re:drop 'em (Score:2, Informative)
If that were to happen, not only would most governments and companies in Europe decide that depending on Microsoft would be too risky, but many governments and companies throughout the world would arrive at the same conclusion.
Home users will make different choices as they always do, but Microsoft would lose it's status as the de facto standard.
Microsoft thrives on being the "safe" choice. It will do nothing to jeapordize that.
MS Dildoes? (Score:3, Funny)
Bill doesn't want to get on the wrong side of some of theose butch dykes.
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Nokia Protection Act of 2003 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
My God, you're right! (Score:2)
- much less post a rant about it.
If our existence and this blog's existence is so fucking meaningless...then how pathetic and useless is your contribution?
only illegal means violate the law (Score:3, Insightful)
The only restriction is that Microsoft must act legally and NOT illegally.
Re:its only a car (Score:2)
Consumers care what food they eat.
Consumers care what clothes they wear.
Consumers care what applications they run.
Consumers care what applications they buy.
Any person who claims that consumers do not care which products they buy is a liar, dead certain.
Why?
Because they themselves care with every purchase they make.
Do not confuse being forced to buy products with the lack of caring.
Almost four hundred million consumers have been forced to buy IE. But, anyone is an idiot for suggesting that consumers do not wish to exercise their right to decide which products they buy in any product category or market.
Yes, they want it to work. But, no body is stupid enough to suggest that all consumers would not care if they were forced to buy a FORD. A FORD runs just as good as a Chevy, right?
It is just outright silly to suggest that consumers do not want to decide what they buy. Only idiots make that claim.
commingling code is an illegal act (Score:2)
But, your point was about "crimes".
Microsoft is not being charged with having violated any crimes. Antitrust violations are not "crimes".
Secondly, no company has ever been prosecuted for entering any business unless the business itself is illegal (such as selling drugs).
Microsoft has been convicted of engaging in any number of acts that do violate the federal and state antitrust laws. And, many more law suits are pending regarding a number of as yet unproven illegal acts. Those include attempted monopolization of the browser market and product tying.
Microsoft may have not yet violated the antitrust laws in regard to cell phones but they clearly and absolutely have in regard to browsers, media players, instant messaging and a number of other products including window managers (yes, they paid Caldera money to get out of that case), disc compression (yes, they paid STac a pile of money for that illegal act) and others.
The only sad part is that not all of Microsoft's "proven illegal acts" have ceased yet.
YOU are still forced to buy a commingled browser. And, that is still true despite the final appellate decision declaring that act a violation of federal law.
So, after the illegal acts stop you can then argue that charges should not be brought against Microsoft until they actually engage in illegal acts. But, the truth of the matter is that no court will find anyone guilty unless they have actually violated the law.
But, if they do engage in illegal acts they absolutely should be sued. And, the illegal acts should cease. Sometimes they do not. And, in those cases additional law suits have to be filed. And, they will be.
For years Netscape did not file its own private antitrust law suit hoping that the DOJ would enforce the law for the benefit of consumers and the industry. But, we now know they failed to do so. Oh, they won the law suit then simply took instructions from the company engaged in the illegal acts and encourage futher violations of those same laws.
The result is that AOL, SUN, Burst and BE had to file their own law suits anyway. And, thanks to AOL, Netscape is still around to sue and collect damages caused to them. By the way, those damages could exceed 10 billion or so.
Actually, 400,000,000 million times $35 is $14 billion dollars. And, arguably Netscape could have earned that revenue over the last 6 years. Triple that to $42 billion as per antitrust law and even Gates will cry uncle.
A $42 billion dollar judgment is not out of the question for the AOL law suit.
In fact, AOL has asked for punitive damages as well. So, the jury can decide how much money Microsoft has to pay in order to get them to comply with the antitrust law and allow customers to decide which applications they buy and use.
You may claim you use something other than IE. But, if you bought from Ms over the last 6 years, you paid cash money for IE without any choice on your part. It was in fact a forced sale to YOU. No customer had a choice. If you bought from MS you were forced to buy IE too.