Microsoft To Fight Korean Verdict 139
DocHart wrote to mention a BBC article covering Microsoft's appeal against their recent Korean ruling. From the article: "The KFTC continued to investigate Microsoft's practices, despite the firm paying Daum $30m in November to end their dispute. The ruling of the KFTC echoes a similar 2004 judgement by the European Commission, which also found that Microsoft was abusing its market domination. Microsoft's rivals have since accused the firm of dragging its feet over unbundling its software in Europe, something Microsoft denies. "
Hasn't Microsoft seen the commercials? (Score:2, Funny)
Oh wait, KFTC? Carry on, then.
Extortion? (Score:1, Interesting)
There just seems to be a trend of "let's figure out something to prosecute MS for". I suspect all these countries that go after MS still have MASSIVE installed bases of MS software. Are all these fines just a round about way of getting lower license costs?
Just a thought.
- Jasen.
Microsoft has been (Score:1)
But Microsoft being the bully it is won't stop without first taking a beating.
It's called a penalty (Score:3, Insightful)
Im my books, companies are corporate bodies, and as such, they have to respect the law. Just like I have to. If I break the law, and am considered guilty, I have to pay a fine.
Why should it be different for corporati
Re:It's called a penalty (Score:1, Informative)
Local councils in the UK are trying to tip-toe around the use of the word fine and trying to convince people that parking fines are 'fixed penalty notices' thereby avoiding that trifling bother of having to get a conviction in a court of law before demanding money from people as punishment for their supposed wrongdoings.
Don't jumble your words up. A 'penalty' is just a flowery word for a fine.
Don't let fines become pretty, flowery, everyday things.
Re:Extortion? (Score:1)
Re:Extortion? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. In many places (including the USA), a monopoly has extra rules it must follow to avoid abusing it's position.
Re:Extortion? (Score:1)
Re:Extortion? (Score:2)
Re:Extortion? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Hey, why not prosecute them for their illegal abuses of monopoly power?"
"Brilliant! Have a Guinness."
What's the conspiracy again? I could believe selective enforcement (provided other companies who appear to be getting away with similar acts), but Microsoft has been found to be abusing their monopoly in the U.S., Europe, and now Korea.
But in answer to your first question, it becomes state-sponsored extortion at the point w
Justice (Score:4, Insightful)
They were convicted of breaking the law in America.
The court trial in which they were convicted of breaking the law in America never reached the remedy/punishment phase. A new political administration simply quietly terminated the antitrust case with some handwaving before it could complete, with no real-world steps taken to stop Microsoft's existing antitrust violations or prevent them in future.
So Microsoft broke the law in America, was convicted in a court of law, and no one ever did anything to make them stop breaking the law. So is it that surprising that they're breaking the law in the rest of the world as well?
I don't see why Microsoft apologists keep falling back on this talking point of claiming that these fines and such are all about the money. If Microsoft would obey the law, they wouldn't have to pay these fines and settlements and whatnot. The power to end these fines is in Microsoft's hands. Microsoft prefers to pay fines and settlements rather than obey the law. What terrible extortionists these horrible statist states are, making Microsoft pay money until they stop doing illegal things. Who do they think they are? They're almost acting like they think they're autonomous countries with the power to pass and enforce laws within their own borders.
Re:Justice (Score:2)
So, soon we will learn which is more powerful. US government, S. Korean government, or the almighty buck.
The US conviction and lack of punishment or change by Microsoft showed that the buck is more powerful in the US.
We will see what S. Korea does...
Stop being over-simplistic (Score:3, Insightful)
Except this lawsuit is in South Korea and doesn't have anything to do with the Netscape vs. IE bundling case. The complaint South Korea has filed relates to including Windows Messenger as part of Windows, which a South Korean firm named "Daum Communications" claims is impeding their ability to compete in the IM market.
The point is, every country on the planet has some little company which makes a product that competes with something inside Windows. S
Re:Stop being over-simplistic (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be hard pressed to believe that bundling Win
Re:Stop being over-simplistic (Score:2)
How many ways do I have to say this? Those companies aren't suing Microsoft, and this lawsuit has nothing to do with AIM or ICQ or Yahoo, just like it has nothing to do with Netscape. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.
If you can't keep your issues separate, you have only managed to pollute the integrity of
Re:Stop being over-simplistic (Score:2)
Browser and instant messenger today... what next? Any bundling gives microsoft an unfair advantage, and lets them pedal inferior products while still gaining market share.
In a few years time, what's to stop windows costing $5000 and come bundled with everything anyone is likely to use, including hardware?
Re:Justice (Score:2)
I don't know the exact phrasing, but there is a quote which goes along the lines of "When the law is unjust, the just ones are in prison". Somehow, it seems applicable here. I don't want to seem like a Microsoft apologist (I, too, hate Windows and has been using Linux exclusively the last five years), but I really don't like the fact that Microsoft aren't allowed to decide for themselves what their products
Re:Extortion? (Score:3, Insightful)
At what point does extracting huge gobs of money from every nation in the world on terms they have no control over NOT become corporate extortion and economic subservience?
Yes, of course they have a defacto monopoly. When 90-95% of all computers run a Windows OS, how the heck is that not a de-facto monopoly? When M
Re:Extortion? (Score:1)
Say, country XZY has a small, but thriving software industry. They've got their own XYZ specific IM company, their own XYZ specific search engine, and a whole raft of webmail companies. Microsoft suddenly adds those features to their OS, makes them so they can't be unbundled, and when you install the next version of the OS, it installs itsself as the default and makes it difficult for you to get your XYZ specific stuff back. Effectively, putting the local company out of business, or seriously cutting into
Re:Extortion? (Score:1)
A man more insightful than I am once wrote: That one should avoid being despised and hated. [adelaide.edu.au] Microsoft has done very little to avoid public hatred and, as such, public opinion greets measures such as these with an overwhelming response of "meh. They had it coming." So when countries take unusually hard steps like t
Re:Extortion? (Score:3, Interesting)
What's next? Fining them for including Paint, Mine Sweeper, NotePad, and the Calculator?
- Jasen.
Re:Extortion? (Score:1)
I guess one can ask if the bundled software pushes a fileformat or a protocoll (controlled by MS), if it is, it probably is a big no-no.
So, next thing could possibly be some kind of RSS-like-format that is "innovated" at MS (isn't something like that coming to Vista?).
Re:Extortion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Only in the same way that going after drug dealers is a way to get cheaper sports cars onto the market. In other words: Yes, if you insist on some really convoluted thinking, you can construct that being the case. For everyone who likes Ockham's Razor better, the case is simple close-and-shut: Criminal company breaks law and gets sued.
Totally Unfair (Score:1)
Re:Totally Unfair (Score:2)
If you're a country, you could even rule that McD has to offer its fries without salt, and they'll comply.
The basis is abusing a monopoly position to kill competition. Back when I was young, monopolies were considered BAD in the US.
Re:Totally Unfair (Score:2)
Actually, no. They'd need to have a clean fry tray. They salt the fries in the same heat tray that they store them in before they're packaged. Even if they emptied the fry tray (for your special order), there would still be residual salt from prior orders. And if you think that Mickey D's is going to take on the liability of having some flunky manually trying to transfer your hot, unsalted fries from a dripping fry
When I worked at McDonalds. (Score:2)
Re:Totally Unfair (Score:4, Insightful)
Me too. I'm afraid Reagan ushered in a new age of stupidity in otherwise smart people.
So many of these new "free marketeers" are simply 100% ignorant of the ramifications of their beliefs. They have thought it out, and being otherwise intelligent people have decided that greed makes sense and if everyone would just be completely greedy, we'd have this perfect world...
It takes a faith stronger than any Christians' to continue to believe in a completely free market in the face of massive evidence that it needs significant controls, so trying to reason with them isn't useful. Also, remember that many of these people are quite smart and used to being right--it's much more difficult for such an individual to recognize when he's got good logic but is working from bad assumptions.
I think we have to wait for the next reset, probably a massively serious depression, before we swing back to a more worker-based system. Maybe next time we'll pass a few more permanent laws so that the next wave of "neo rich" can't dismantle them so easily.
Americans (Humans?) have such short memories and are doomed to repeat their mistakes no matter how clearly those who actually understand try to explain.
Re:Totally Unfair (Score:1)
- Andrew
Re:Totally Unfair (Score:2)
Totally Unfair....NOT! (Score:2)
Microsoft has a monopoly in the PC operating area. If you have a product that you want to sell but Microsoft bundles a similar product into its monopoly product it will kill your product. People will use the bundled product just because it's there.
Microsoft typically uses their monopoly position to expand into other, non-related areas. If for example they want to control web browsers they simply bundle (and in this case integrate) their browser into
Re:Totally Unfair....NOT! (Score:2)
Re:Totally Unfair....NOT! (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm... that was the whole point. The gp said:
If you have a product that you want to sell but Microsoft bundles a similar product into its monopoly product it will kill your product.
Microsoft doesn't have a product competitive to iTunes yet, when they do they can use their monopolistic advantage to promote it.
Re:Totally Unfair (Score:2)
Not quite (Score:2)
In Korea... (Score:1, Funny)
$30 million?! (Score:1, Funny)
first 3 posts (Score:3, Funny)
perhaps you are here by mistake?
Re:first 3 posts (Score:2)
Dragging their feet? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bla bla bla (Score:1)
Probably not news even in Korea (Score:2)
Tae Kwon Do Bill Gates (Score:1)
switch (Score:1)
Allow the user... (Score:1)
Mmmmmmm KFTC (Score:2)
For some reason I really want fried chicken.
Simple solution (Score:2)
DRM? Fine, put it on
KFTC... or KFC? (Score:2)
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:4, Insightful)
because they arent the underdogs?
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2)
>
>because they arent the underdogs?
And because in Korea, only old underdogs can bundle an episode of chair-throwing with their opera*WOOF*fling*THUNK*
NO CARRIER
(Have no fear, the guy who'll fucking bury Google is here!)
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:5, Insightful)
And, most importantly, you can choose which pieces you want to install, and only have the ones you want. They're just on the distribution as a courtesy.
There is a difference between saying "here is your OS, and by the way, we've included scads of optional stuff you can install or not as you wish" and the Microsoft position of "here is your OS, we've also given your our media player, conveniently given you links to drive you to MSN and Passport, and given you no way to choose not to install them".
Those components come with the base OS and need to be separately uninstalled, if it can be uninstalled at all.
In the article, they say "Korean customers can easily download rival systems", well, why not put the competitors on equal footing and allow you do download the MS offerings if you want? They defend it as saying that people wouldn't know how, or it's too much hassle; but tout it as a perfectly good way to get the competitors products -- the difference is the competitors don't have the same luxury of shoving the apps down the user's throats when they install the OS.
Meaning they get to ensure that since everyone is going to have their OS, that the user should be presented with their (often crappy) apps first. Want to include 'em in your distribution and make them truly optional components go ahead. Want to make them installed and entrenched from the get go, not a good plan.
If users had to always find and install the apps they needed ( or at least choose them ), they would understand that the defaults provided are neither required, nor always 'best of breed'. When people get the MS stuff by default, they just assume they have to do it.
I totally agree you should be able to buy a Windows operating system without getting the implied Microsoft bundled applications, which keep causing secutiry issues for people who don't otherwise know better.
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2)
Isn't this why they have the Windows "N" versions?
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2, Insightful)
You get choices on what you install and no particular product is promoted over another by the distro, excluding desktops which usually has a default but even there you have the choice on other desktops that you can install.
Microsoft does no such thing they say here yo
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2, Insightful)
You are free to not use them, but you are not free to:
a) Uninstall them.
b) Not be counted as having them as a windows user.
This lets web developers or media companies assume that 90% of the world have the capability of rendering an IE only page, or playing a wmv file legally, so they can default to microsoft products and not be losing over 10% of their audiance. But this is anti-competetive. And this is how microsoft leverages
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2)
a) Uninstall them.
b) Not be counted as having them as a windows user.
Which is of roughly zero relevance to 99% of users. Having app A installed does not stop me using app B that happens to do mostly the same thing.
This lets web developers or media companies assume that 90% of the world have the capability of rendering an IE only page, or playing a wmv file legally, so they can default to microsoft products and not be losing over 10% of their audian
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:1)
Ah, but it does matter to businesses that windows users have IE there by default. This way IE defaults to 90% of computers, so you _must_ code for IE (you know they have IE, but you're not sure they have firefox). This just throws the responsibility for compatibility to the web developers, rather than it being microsoft's responsibility to make IE standards comp
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2)
Ah, but it does matter to businesses that windows users have IE there by default. This way IE defaults to 90% of computers, so you _must_ code for IE (you know they have IE, but you're not sure they have firefox).
No, you should be able to code for the common denominator that both IE and Firefox support.
If IE was uninstallable and as non standards compliant as it is today, people could code by standards and the burden would be on MS to fix their archaic browser.
Are you saying there is not a single commo
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:4, Informative)
I can explain (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe this [slashdot.org] can refresh your memory.
If Microsoft didn't bundle internet explorer, both IE and Netscape would keep fighting to deliver better, more secure products. It's been 10 years since Windows 95 came out, and viruses have multiplied via internet explorer security flaws.
I call BS (Score:1, Troll)
Then, insteed of getting out a new release ASAP, they wasted time deciding to re-write the entire browser from scratch. TWICE.
M
ActiveX (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but I'm not talking about Netscape's death. I'm talking about MSIE's artificial domination of the market and their most stupid idea (created to "compete" with Netscape's plugins) in the world: ActiveX. The thing was a hacker's dream come true. I still remember the days where you could open an infected webpage, and a vbscript would be created on your harddrive, filling your compu
Re:ActiveX (Score:2)
IE's domination of the market was in no way artificial. It's most explosive growth period came with the version, and during the time, when it *wasn't* bundled with Windows. People weren't using IE4 "because it was there", they were using IE4 because they'd gone out and deliberately downloaded it.
Netscape plugins worked JUST FINE, and they didn't give viruses to your computer.
What stopped
Re:ActiveX (Score:1)
That not only create a whole market for add-ons and other after market corrective tools, but also keeps MS shops far too busy in crisis mode putting out fires to check out competing software.
That's a big disincentive for MS to spend extra time or effort to fix, especially since competitors would receive the most benefit. There are also other interest
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:1)
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:1)
Monopolies [wikipedia.org]
Specificly:
Natural monopoly [wikipedia.org]
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:1)
Letting Microsoft keep on bundling apps that they don't allow to be removed is like giving a sniper rifle and some rope to a convicted serial killer who shot all his victims with a sniper rifle and then hung them from trees with rope. Normal
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2)
Microsoft's bundling is all about promoting the one protocol or format that the bundled app supports.
Interesting that Office is not bundled with Windows.
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:1)
2 reasons (Score:2)
No BSD or Linux distro has a similar market domination as Windows. Even RedHat, being one of the key players in the Linux market, has no position to dictate which software is to be "in" the fold and which one is "out". RedHat (and other distributors) also neither offer key software themselves, nor do they set a standard (besides
Also,
Re:2 reasons (Score:2)
It's not odd in the slightest. Code reuse and modularity are considered hallmarks of good system design.
There's a reason why KDE, GNOME and OS X have gone on to reimplement the same sort of functionality - *because it was a good idea*.
For all the problems shared software components can cause, they are generally considered to offer an overall benefit. Which is why every contemporary
Re:2 reasons (Score:1)
They shouldn't have to unbundle. They can make their product as they want to, when you choose to purchase and use Windows, you are choosing to use the functionality built into Windows.
Now if they were bundling with only certain Third Party programs, such as bundling Java into it, since they do not own Java, that would be forcing Java onto the Consumer.
If you don't want to use Windows Media Player, then don't, it's that simple, I used Winamp for quite some time. People just like to piss and moan and now
Re:2 reasons (Score:1)
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:1)
Windows
1.) Make all the bundled software themselves.
2.) Closed source (proprietary) bundled software.
3.) Real hard to unbundle the software.
Linux
1.) Chooses "the best" (or just darn good) pick of someone elses software
2.) Bundled software is open source
3.) Real easy to unbundle the software.
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:1)
4.) Tries to promote their protocol over (even better suited) alternatives.
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2)
With Windows, Microsoft always bundles one browser and one mail client, and both are made by Microsoft. They never include browsers or mail clients made by their competitors; if they did, other companies wouldn't be dragging them
Put simply (Score:1)
MS do not give you a choice whether you want the bundled apps to be installed or not, and in some cases (IE4+, WMP) it's ridiculously hard to remove them due to their tight integration with the OS.
This same tight integration is part of problem security-wise - a small whole in, say, IE can allow someone to gain control of the entire system. Furthermore there are a whole bunch of completely undocumented APIs that MS's apps use and no-
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2)
Nothing.
every bsd and linux distro are chock full of bundled applications. why can't windows do the same?
You're comparing fluffy kitten apples with ninja oranges. Microsoft can redistribute everything the top distro provide. The reverse is not true.
Bundling is a tactic microsoft use to gain competetive advantage (and this in itself isn't too bad - look at Apple's use of it) - but Microsoft take it further then they should, using their dominance in one market to attempt to gain
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:1)
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2)
Microsoft bundling, say, Media Player is different for two reasons: (1) Media Play
Oops (Score:2)
I forgot (4) A fanatical devotion to the Pope.
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2)
Microsoft was trying to improve their operating system by including functionality into the OPERATING system by default. What people call bundling I call integration. This is a distinction made only be software people, and it is really only made by disgruntled software people (IE Netscape, AOL) and states looking for money.
So, in essence, its crap, but because MS was considered a monopoly (also cra
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2)
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2)
If you want to learn more about the legal basis for various countries' actions agaist Microsoft, do some Google searches related to anti-trust laws.
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:1)
software in a gnu/linux/bsd distribution:
software installed per default on the microsoft windows operating system however:
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:1)
And while part of it is xenophobia, a good deal of it is taking care of one's own. Face it, if Microsoft is slowed who knows which Korean firm
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2)
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2)
Militarily I can understand.
But culturally? Surely, you jest?
I'm not one of those who says the US has no culture, but saying that neither Europe nor Asia can take on the US culturally is quite a statement.
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:1)
* for certain debatable definitions of "culture"
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2)
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2)
I think you'll find Europe and Asia are becoming a hell of a lot more like the US, than the US is becoming like Europe and Asia (and neither of them like it one bit, from what I can tell - understandably so, too).
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2)
If we are protectionist, and run other countries run a $700 billion dollar surplus with us, I'd hate to see what would happen if we opened our shores up.
Re:would someone explain to me (Score:2)
Also keep in mind that it is not all China. I am not aware of any European country that imports more from us than they export to us.
Re:It's just another write off (Score:2)
Sorry, but I don't get it... (Score:1)
Re:Sorry, but I don't get it... (Score:1)
Additionally, payment in kind can sometimes be accepted for these types of law suits. This means that a few hundred dollars worth of plastic can actually be expensed for several million dollars because it contains soft
Re:It's just another write off (Score:2)
You don't even know what a write-off is, do you?
</Jerry>
Re:Judging by your spelling (Score:1)