| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Antitrust filing cites Microsoft Silverlight concern | |
|
||
| Time: 00:03 EST/05:03 GMT | News Source: Seattle PI | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
In a filing last night (PDF, 26 pages), California and several other states asked U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to extend most of Microsoft's U.S. antitrust settlement for another five years. The filing formalizes a request that the states previously outlined in court. In arguing for the extension, the filing cites a number of concerns, including the fear that Microsoft could use the next version of Windows to "tilt the playing field" toward Silverlight, its new Adobe Flash competitor. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 345 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:48:42 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/18/2007 8:22:34 AM |
| MS leveraging their OS monopoly to squeeze out competitors in other markets? They would never do such a thing. |
| #2 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 10/18/2007 10:41:05 AM |
|
MS paid the fine, did their probation, but is still being hounded. Now that is an abomination!
In case anyone hasn't noticed, Adobe saturates this market with Flash that is in many was inferior to Silverlight. So much for innovation and competitiveness. |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/18/2007 11:39:09 AM |
| If MS wants to stop being "hounded", as it were, all they need to do is avoid the anti-competitive behaviour that gets them in trouble. It's that simple. |
| #4 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 10/18/2007 12:29:32 PM |
| How exactly is SilverLight anti-competitive? |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/18/2007 12:52:08 PM |
|
It's not the specific technology, per se, that's anti-competitive. It's two things: first, like IE when Netscape was hot, they're going to likely make it available via Windows Update and include it in the base OS in future, thereby giving Silverlight an automatic huge advantage over Flash and other 3rd-party tools that are not bundled with the OS. Using their desktop monopoly to enter new markets is an antitrust no-no. Second, there is their history of embrace, extend, extinguish. In this case, they are making Silverlight available to Windows (both IE and Firefox), Mac and Linux. However, once the technology has gained traction, you will see them tweak the Windows/IE version so that it is superior to the other implementations. In time, MS will drop support for the others, leaving only the Windows-based IE-specific implementation as the only remaining option. And all of that is also alongside the state's complaint that MS is *still* dragging its feet about disclosing server communications protocols in an effort to hamper interoperability. Since MS can afford to pay the fine as a cost of doing business and continue the illegal behaviour, the states have to keep on them since the penalty isn't acting like much of a deterrent.
|
| #6 By 48398 (63.229.74.126) at 10/18/2007 1:20:08 PM |
| All new computers come with Acrobat, Flash, Google Desktop, etc... If system builders chose to include silverlight with new PCs, would that still be considered anti-competitive? Everybody has carte blanche to dump software on PCs but Microsoft gets attacked for the possibility that they might. Ridiculous. |
| #7 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 10/18/2007 1:35:00 PM |
|
“It's not the specific technology, per se, that's anti-competitive.”
The article is talking about a specific technology – Silverlight. Everything you are talking about is history or speculation. Why don’t we wait to see if MS packages Silverlight in the OS and then take action??? By the way, MONO (with help from MS) is implementing Silverlight on Linux as Moonlight. |
| #8 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 10/18/2007 1:49:07 PM |
|
#7: By the way, MONO (with help from MS) is implementing Silverlight on Linux as Moonlight.
Not quite. Novell is implementing Moonlight. Mono is a separate Novell product, which implements .Net on non-Windows systems, such as Linux. #6: A system integrator can add whatever it wants to and call it a value add. Microsoft is not a system builder. It is a monopoly. A monopoly has to follow different rules than a non-monopoly. Also, there is a big difference between a system integrator and a manufacturer. |
| #9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/18/2007 2:13:52 PM |
|
#7: If you want to play the nitpicky game, I'll go along. Yes, the article is talking about a specific technology, but as anyone with half a brain can figure out, technology in itself is agnostic. In this case, the concern is not Silverlight in itself or what it can do. The concern is with how the technology is disseminated ie bundled by MS with the OS or made into a Critical or Important update. In that context, it doesn't matter that its Silverlight or some other MS technology.
Everything you are talking about is history or speculation. Why don’t we wait to see if MS packages Silverlight in the OS and then take action??? Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. With antitrust action & the courts as slow as they are, IT industry remedies must be proactive. By the time the courts came around to finding MS guilty in the browser bundling case, Netscape was already toast. MS knows they can move faster than the courts. They can't afford to wait until Flash is dead before action is taken, as the action would amount to closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. By the way, MONO (with help from MS) is implementing Silverlight on Linux as Moonlight. I believe I already mentioned that Silverlight would be available for Mac and Linux. However, it would be simple for MS to cut down Moonlight or Mono on a whim in the future if it suited them. |
| #10 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 10/18/2007 2:57:33 PM |
|
Microsoft isn't a monopoly.
The EU said "near monopoly" The US said the judge screwed up. |
| #11 By 37 (66.191.117.13) at 10/18/2007 4:36:52 PM |
|
"It's two things: first, like IE when Netscape was hot, they're going to likely make it available via Windows Update and include it in the base OS in future, thereby giving Silverlight an automatic huge advantage over Flash and other 3rd-party tools that are not bundled with the OS. Using their desktop monopoly to enter new markets is an antitrust no-no. Second, there is their history of embrace, extend, extinguish. In this case, they are making Silverlight available to Windows (both IE and Firefox), Mac and Linux. However, once the technology has gained traction, you will see them tweak the Windows/IE version so that it is superior to the other implementations. In time, MS will drop support for the others, leaving only the Windows-based IE-specific implementation as the only remaining option. "
I have no problem with MS doing exactly what you just stated. I would do the same exact thing if it were me. |
| #12 By 16302 (64.201.211.159) at 10/18/2007 5:16:26 PM |
| #5: you say that it is not the technology, but you brought up two points - distributing silverlight through Windows update (leveraging their windows update), and tuning silverlight for Windows once it gets penetration. I would like to inform you that Microsoft is NOT delivering Silverlight through Windows Updates (their lawyers won't let them), and that your second accusation has not happened. As such, you have no argument. |
| #13 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 10/18/2007 8:36:08 PM |
| ShanTheMan - I think you just broke Latch's ankles with that crossover dribble! |
| #14 By 5444 (76.185.20.77) at 10/18/2007 8:39:54 PM |
|
Oh latch how we forget that we like to reward companies that implement things poorly.
Netscape 1 > ie 1 Netscape 2 > ie 2 Netscape 3 > IE 3 Netscape communicator just plained sucked and nothing appeared to compete with Ie 4 IE 5 and near the Reign of IE 6. Well we are not talking about other browsers here as Opera was ok around ie 5 days. El |
| #15 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at 10/18/2007 10:57:35 PM |
|
#11: That kind of behaviour is what got them into antitrust trouble to begin with.
#12: I would like to inform you that Microsoft is NOT delivering Silverlight through Windows Updates (their lawyers won't let them) I'm aware that they're not distributing Silverlight via Windows Update right this minute, thanks. I gave an example of how they might distribute Silverlight. I didn't say they will do that, and I didn't say they are doing that now. But please, don't let my actual words get in the way of your incorrect interpretation. and that your second accusation has not happened. As such, you have no argument. Let me get this straight. I'm speculating on what I think MS might do in the future, and you say that I'm wrong because it hasn't happened yet. Um, OK. You are aware that the future is not the present, right? MS didn't pervert Java the same instant they licensed it from Sun. It took a few years. #13: rxcall, the new mini-moore. |
| #16 By 23275 (71.12.191.230) at 10/18/2007 11:22:32 PM |
|
My my...
The argument relative to browsers is ridiculous and as far off the mark as one can get. In case it was missed the first few hundred times - "The browser is dead" - as the place "where" applications will be executed. It is very much alive as the point where applications will be executed "from." Silverlight "IS" key - tools under the WPF, which will be connected to .NET beginning with rev 1.1. The combination allows one to devise very Rich Internet Applications [RIA] that make current web apps look like the crap they are. As I have said, some of you will see this and very soon. Hint... hint... tap... tap... In May 2004, I shared that the browser was dead and would evolve as the springboard from which RIA's would be launched. You want the app... SL will be delivered first. The desktop will become something quite special - quite like what Fritz has shared so many times and connections [laterally] between them will be possible. Business will change, too - coalition initiatives of every kind and mashups of not just code, but business logic. I am building exactly this kind of business network and you can bet, a) SL v1.1 will be there on top of Vista and b) it will work and well for all businesses that are members of not one CMA, but dozens. New code, and dynamic forms of collaboraton will allow people to participate fully and effectively as members of dozens of enterprises. |
| #17 By 48398 (130.13.158.96) at 10/19/2007 8:27:41 AM |
| #8, I meant is Microsoft still to blame is somebody else loads it on the system before it's delivered to the end user. I guarantee you they'd still be attacked. Am I the only one sick of having to unclick "Install Google Toolbar" when I download anything? Why is everybody else exempt from this rule? With Google's dominance in the search market, they should have to follow the same distribution rules as Microsoft. |
| #18 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 10/19/2007 8:46:13 AM |
| #15: Sounds like Sour Grapes or Sore Ankles! |
| #19 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 10/19/2007 9:12:41 AM |
|
lketchum: As I have said, some of you will see this and very soon. Hint... hint... tap... tap...
Oh you big tease! |
| #20 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 10/19/2007 9:15:38 AM |
|
Latch: MS didn't pervert Java the same instant they licensed it from Sun.
Perhaps, one of the most brilliant, albeit probably unintentional at first, abuses of monopoly power. Also, I remember the days when MSDN was powered by several Java applets up until the whole of Java was yanked from the MS domains. |
| #21 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/19/2007 10:36:05 AM |
|
#14: Perhaps you're not old enough to remember IE 1, 2 and 3 which were flaming pieces of crap. They finally started to get it right with 3.02.
#18: Do you ever have anything of substance to say here? Ever? Even mini-moore has evolved somewhat to actually offer a comment that isn't a "me too!" or snipe, but you seem to have filled that space he left behind nicely. Your thought is about as deep as a footprint. #20: It would have been the pinnacle of MS' "Embrace, Extent, Extinguish" routine if not for the strength of the language and the emergence of other platforms for it to run on. |
| #22 By 37 (76.210.78.134) at 10/19/2007 12:39:55 PM |
|
"#15 By Latch (1614 Posts) at 10/18/2007 10:57:35 PM [Delete | Nullify]
That kind of behaviour is what got them into antitrust trouble to begin with. " And I don't agree with the DOJ or the EU. The antitrust suits are pure BS. I also think MS should leverage their powers in any form or fashion they desire, including monopolizing (yes, I know it's illegal). I think they should put Silverlight on Windows Update as well. I don't think they should be required to make the changes they have made to the Windows OS or even Office (most recently Office 2007....requiring them to made PDF functionality as a download in Office 2007 instead of making it native in the apps.) XPS is another example of something that should have not been tampered with. |
| #23 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 10/19/2007 12:55:17 PM |
|
#21: Oh who put this record back on?
Seriously, you spout the same crap over and over again and you treat everyone here who doesn't agree with your narrow vision with disrespect and disdain. Yeah… we get it! You think MS is a monopoly and is the enemy of civilization itself. Folks, there is nothing to see here - just Latch hurling hatred on the same old soapbox. Move on or go to Slashdot with the other basement dwelling losers. |
| #24 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/19/2007 2:37:17 PM |
|
#22: But do you not see the inherent problems in a system that allows a megalith to dictate everything it wants with its power totally unchecked? While there are benefits to such an arrangement, they are far outweighed by the negatives.
#23: Hey, as long as you continue to post ad hominem attacks that are bereft of any other content, I'll continue to point it out. Your posts are empty vessels. Counter my posts with something other than insults and I'll stop exposing you as having nothing of substance to say. |
| #25 By 37 (66.191.117.13) at 10/19/2007 4:22:52 PM |
| No doubt latch, there will be negatives...and inherent problems. That doesn't change my opinion on the matter though. The world has become dependent on Microsoft. I am not going to BLAME Microsoft for that. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 345 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:48:42 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
