| 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 |
 |
Economist Backs Microsoft Penalties | |
|
||
| Time: 09:38 EST/14:38 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
The antitrust penalties sought against Microsoft by nine states will help consumers whether or not Microsoft's Windows operating system monopoly is degraded, an economist testified Thursday. Carl Shapiro, an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said the added pressure placed on Microsoft by a new range of non-Microsoft products that work as well with Windows will ultimately bring new inventions. "Microsoft's rallying cry in this case has been 'freedom to innovate,'" Shapiro testified, "An effective remedy will ensure that Microsoft's rivals are also free to innovate." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 179 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
2:50:30 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 3339 (64.175.43.4) at 4/11/2002 11:41:36 PM |
|
(How 'bout I explain how Apple and the Mac clones doesn't constitute a monopoly as well so we can clear that up and I can get at another example of monopoly behavior:)
Apple decides to license its OS to three companies--this is a shift in business model and it proves disastous--they realize they have to shudtdown the licensing program. They say, when your license run out we will not be issuing new contracts so we will either buy your assets or do whatever we can to not leave you lameducks. (This goes over fine for PowerComputing--not so smoothly for UMax and Motorola) But in no way were they retaliating against another business or trying to wield power over them to promote their own products--it was just a business decision to not continue licensing.) This is far different than MS aying to OEm that they will revoke their licenses or charge them twic as much for shipping naked boxes because Linux gets installed on naked boxes. This is retaliation. If MS wanted to, they could let all their contracts expire and make their own boxes. I have no problem with that--it would kill a unch of businesses but it would be thir legal right. It is exclusive dealings to tie their software to boxes with their OS, to promote themselves, etc. and/or retaliation against a business partner for doing business with someone besides themselves that is monopolistic. |
| #27 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/11/2002 11:47:43 PM |
|
#53 - You aren't answering my questions, all you do is keep repeating the same tired old rhetoric. Are you incapable of thinking for yourself?
|
| #28 By 3339 (64.175.41.24) at 4/12/2002 3:23:45 AM |
|
Network effects are not the same thing as standards; network effect are when their are tendencies because of dependencies or associations to other things which are linked to other things created other dependecies, etc...
You are missing my point about Apple--it does not have to do with whether or not businesses were hurt--this happens naturally and legally; it has to do with whether or not they are targeting a company to retaliate against them or if they are giving preference to someone to promote their products in order to establish dominance in a market. iMovie isn't tied to MacOS--you can delete the app. It's also a fairly small featured app, but there is an SDK to develop plug-ins, effects, transitions. So even if who? Adobe--they don't have a low-featured app; Final Cut Pro is doing the job of kicking Premiere's ass... So even if someone were upset--there would be no unfair advantage and it actually creates a new market for new apps (via the SDK). In this past week alone, I think about four products have come out. The SDK was released a month or two ago. (Which is interesting too--at some point these plug-ins will build up iMovie so much that it does compete with the more full-featured apps--including Apple's own.) That's what I call playing fair. I was saying that marketshare is not the be all end all in defining a monopoly, such that you could be a monopoly with only 65% of the market. But generally speaking, if you have dominant marketshare you have more power. What you do with that power defines your behavior. As I said, if MS wasn't threatening OEMs by denying licenses or raising prices, it would be okay. The case did get pretty heavy into networked markets. But this is the law too (well-defined, precedents), we can't try to wrap evolution and ecology (vague, dynamic, theoretical) into this... And as I said, you are saying that by being more dominant and more acceptable to consumers and having pushed back the competitors to not even competing, they should be allowed to be that way. The court disagrees--they say that's exactly what a monopoly is. Again, it sounds like you are suggesting that there should be a standard and we should have one OS in the world... if we were to expand to a broad networked vision, does it then follow that all apps, games, content, web sites, services be provided by MS. Where does it stop? The integration chain never stops. Do you keep rationalizing that because MS can stay ahead of other companies that EVERYTHING should be their's? Your nature metaphor is appropriate--biodiversity is strength and growth; homogeneity and uniformity is not very well disposed to grow and evolve. Eventually that collapses on itself, but before all species die out, you try to restrain he dominant specie to allow others to thrive. The case is about protecting the OS monopoly, and leveraging the OS monopoly into the browser monopoly (with some attention given to Java) because browsers and Java were deemed threats to MS's OS. I'd be very happy to have the case to expand to issues of MS leveraging the OS to dominant other markets beside browsers as well, but that never happened. Although now various platform technologies are confused with this middleware threat so these issues are being treated--services, media, alt. devices, etc.. This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, April 12, 2002 at 03:35. |
| #29 By 3339 (64.175.41.24) at 4/12/2002 3:46:04 AM |
| By the way, it was exactly because of network effects that Apple was excluded from the market definition that MS dominates. Apple exists external to the networked markets of the x86 world of developers, ISVs, OSes, hardware, consumers... They ruled that Apple wasn't an alternative to consuemrs of Wintel because of the application barrier as well as the need to purchase into a proprietay hardware scheme--this is prohibitive to most, hence its not an option. You should really read the Appeals Court decison, they talk about network effects alot, Coach. |
| #30 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 4/12/2002 11:08:37 AM |
|
SodaJerk, well thank you for your personal attack at me. I stated it was all my opinion and since we have the right to free speech in this country I thought I could state an opinion without being attacked by a person like you. I have never attacked you or called your comments stupid. Albeit some are I have never said that. I never said MS was not a monoploy, I just believe that in the end nothing will change. MS has the money to keep fighting and drag this out until they come to an end that they accept. I think if there is a wathdog in place to make sure they treat everyone equally and do not charge more to the OEM who would like to put Netscape, Real Player ort whatever on there products everything will be fine. IE and Netscape can co-exist on the desktop for example and then let the consumer decide which to use. Also this country is drivin on Sales and Advertising, we have radio, tv, and newspaper, so that is what people use to sell there products. And they pay dearly, believe me I work for one of the larget Media outlets in the US. We have radio, TV, and Newspapers. Anyhow, why should MS have to cut there OS down so that the competition can put there software in. The competetion can advertise and lobby the OEM's to include there sofware with the PC sale.
Also, still I have yet to see what consumer complained about MS's tactics or there abuse of Monopoly power. I have not seen at all in this case where someone has proved that MS harmed a consumer by abusing it monopoly power. That is what I believe the antitrust laws should be about. Protecting the consumer, maybe if this case was not happening, MS could lower prices and help the consumer. But we will never know now, because they need to keep selling software and hardware to make more money to pay for this trial and the lawyers. Who I might add probably use all MS software, as well as the Government who is MS's biggest client. It makes no sense to me, I am sure that there was probably a good resolution already and MS probably denied it or the states denied it. The states deny all since they are working for the Competition instead of the people. They are doing it for SUN and AOL and whoever else is crabbing, not the people that live in there states. That is where I see the big problem. |
| #31 By 135 (209.46.107.141) at 4/12/2002 1:12:21 PM |
|
RANT - Once again, you refuse to answer my questions. I doubt you can think for yourself, because you've been unable to explain your position in anything other than a "I'm right! How dare you try to question me!?"
Don't you see how your whining may become tiring to those of us who like to consider all of the issues and the long term repurcussions? |
| #32 By 135 (209.46.107.141) at 4/12/2002 4:06:23 PM |
| #68 - Oh dear. |
| #33 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/12/2002 4:12:10 PM |
|
Coach, why is it wrong to look at Java just becaue it can run on other platforms? That's a bizaree argument. It was still a threat to windows. MS said it was; they also said that their adjustments to the code were aimed to slow the progress of Java and make it Windows-only. That is very clear. Just because MS wanted to access native components doesn't mean they get to invalid their contract with Java--that's the problem with what MS did. I could say I have problems with Windows--am I entitled to change it?
The biggest problem was in no way the inclusion of icons, but that does show just how controlling MS is. MS dropped the ball legally because it has these insane ideas of entitlement: they felt that the market should be defined as eerything and they compete aginst everything, hence no monopoly--that's a very delusional thought. They also feel that because we have protections for IP, they can do anything with their IP--even if it is contrary to US law. Also, insane--that was was very comically treated by the AC. They said that's like saying if you use your own baseball bat to smash someone upside the head, you are immune to tort claims--it's great to see judge's with senses of humor. You think MS has a smaller, weaker, less sophisticated legal team than Sun? That's just insane, that's towing the MS line. Haven't you been arguing for including a consideration of network effects--as I said, they did, and that chiseled Apple out of the argument. That is also why Java would be included in the discussion. |
| #34 By 135 (209.46.107.141) at 4/12/2002 5:51:53 PM |
|
RANT - Heh. Nothing new in your post.
|
| #35 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/12/2002 6:00:46 PM |
|
Coach, I'm a bit confused by some of the things you're saying so excuse me if I get something wrong. Since when does a non-involved party have the right to muscle in on a company to prevent them from having a relationship with another? That's bizarre that you think MS has the right to that. It was a deal between Sun and Intel after all--not a preexisting exclusive deal between MS and Intel. I don't know what you are talking about when you talk about it's okay for MS to muscle Intel to compete with Sun but that it's a problem "with MS using its power to limit just the Windows part of the platform (breaking down the network effect barrier)." Huh? What? MS limiting its own platform? I'm confused, MS likes network effects. You think it's illegal for Intel to help Sun with Java because Jave isn't tied to Wintel? What? Intel isn't legally obliged to do theings that MS wants. Huh? Microsoft wasn't properly informed by their lawyers---that's how they ended up "accidently" thwarting the contract between Sun and Java? I'm confused.
This also enturely ignores the fact that MS created it's own non-Java commands, put them in their IDE, and said they could be used to create Java code--when they couldn't. This was a major part of the case--the willful deception of develoeprs to make them beleive that they were developing croosplatform Java, but in fact, their code could only run on Windows. Are you forgetting that this all started with a consent decree that MS willfully violated that they wouldn't bundle IE with windows? They knew exactly what they were doing and didn't give a sh1t. I don't know what court system you are referring to where a legal advisor would be apointed to MS, and he would tell them they could and could not do this, and MS was going to listen to them? Are you crazy, Coach? MS still doesn't admit they are a monopoly; a lawyer telling them so wouldn't change anything? Are you serious, come on? This is just getting too bizarre on your part. And why would a single court-appointed advisor know what to do any better than prosecutors debating with defense attorneys before a District Court, reviewed by an Appeals Court... Isn't that a much more effective way of determining the proper legal stance to take. You say these are thorny legal issues--yes, so isn't the court supposed to hear them and determine them. I don't get what alternative you would advocate over that--it sound like you are looking for wiggle room for MS. No, I wouldn't have defined the marketplace as x86 boces, I would have included Apple and still found them to be a monpoly. Then the remedy would have to take account of MS's threats to pull its Mac software even though it has always profited, in fact all the Office software basically started on the Mac. But as I said, this definition came out of a very protracted and thoroughly debated argument that included both the prosecutors and MS's lawyers--I don't know why your lack of understanding of how it resulted in such discounts the fact that MS's lawyers were able to put forth their arguments before a judge. |
| #36 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/13/2002 12:19:05 PM |
|
RANT - I asked the question several pages ago... If you couldn't be bothered to read and answer it then, why change your mode of attack now?
|
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 179 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
2:50:30 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
