| 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 |
 |
Microsoft Outlines Next Move in Antitrust Case | |
|
||
| Time: 15:23 EST/20:23 GMT | News Source: Washington Post | Posted By: Julien Jay | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. plans to argue in court hearings next week that if antitrust sanctions sought by state prosecutors are granted, the company would be forced to pull its latest Windows computer operating systems off the market and be unable to develop new systems. In court filings late Friday, the company said the recently released consumer operating system, Windows XP, and the business-oriented Windows 2000 system could not be redesigned to satisfy state demands that they be made available in separate versions, with and without key programs, such as the Internet Explorer Web browser. The states, in a filing Friday, plan to argue that Microsoft's claims are a "doomsday defense" and that such separation is not only feasible but essential to remedying Microsoft's antitrust violations and restoring software competition. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 164 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:55:10 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 116 (66.68.170.138) at 3/4/2002 3:35:10 PM |
|
Now that would be total folly if you ask me. Can I sue the other States that are pushing this? Can I sue the AG's for those states? I don't understand if the Feds and my state are ok with this settlement why a couple of retarded state AG's can force my choice of operaing systems. They are harming me as a consumer by preventing my access to programs that I want to purchase. I didn't vote for those state AG's. This is insane!
|
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 4:11:00 PM |
|
.66, your suggestion is exactly the reason for an antitrust suit. Yes, Microsoft could hold hostage anyone who disagrees with them, exactly the point. To do so would be illegal in a big way and would represent leverage for the court to really "force" MS into action they don't want to take--it would not give MS any leverage but lose them money, lose clients, and would finally prove to people how much power they do have and exactly how they abuse it.
The idea that MS "cannot" do this is ridiculous. The idea that this would affect everyone, including those who want everything, is ridiculous--the states want both versions to be available, not just the stripped down version. How is it that WinXP embedded can be componentized? How will getting the option of a full install or a trimmed down install impair your access to applications you want? |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 4:15:34 PM |
| Once again, for andrew, the claim of per se tying (Article 1 of the Sherman Act) was remanded; however, in regards to Article 2 of the Sherman Act, it was found that "bundling" IE with Windows was illegal in regards to 2 actions: preventing the removal of IE via the Add/Remove utility and by commingling code which was not used by both systems, and, hence, was done so without any procompetitive justification--in fact, the sole reason for doing so was to harm the competition. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/4/2002 4:31:44 PM |
|
That's not true, jerk. The bundling was never found to be illegal, it was thrown back at the court for further argument. The DOJ subsequently dropped the whole debate.
The DOJ realized this would be a difficult argument, since every OS shipped in the past 4 years has had a browser included with it. It has become expected by the consumer, and can easily be argued to benefit the consumer. Your last sentence, "the sole reason for doing so was to harm the competition" is wrong, unproven, and totally off base. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 4:35:13 PM |
| soda, for the fiftieth time, this is true, exactly as I state it. If you don't believe me and refuse to read the Appeals Court ruling, fine--but don't try to FUD all the other little minions who don't know better and don't choose to get involved enough to READ the ruling. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 4:54:03 PM |
|
...although, now, it does turn out that the stripped version w/ downloads is the only option that the States want--in response to MS's argument that people will be confused.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020304/tc_nm/microsoft_states_dc_6&cid=581 |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 5:04:35 PM |
|
No, Article 2 of the Sherman Act is for those companies who do occupy monopoly power and then use it to further their monopolies anti-competitively.
Don't go off on some stupid: Linux monopolies Linux, Apple monopolizes Mac idiocy either; I've never understood if people are so ignorant that they believe those analogies or if they are just smokescreening and stonewalling. |
| #8 By 116 (66.68.170.138) at 3/4/2002 5:08:04 PM |
|
I have big issues with the Anti Trust implications of Microsoft Software. I look at Microsoft as writers of really good books. They are the J.K. Rowling (of Harry Potter fame) of books. To me the IP (Intellectual Property) is the same. To tell MS what they can and can't write sets a very nasty precedent for the the future. Has your hatred of MS made you blind to this? I don't believe what I can and can't say (or in MS's case write) should be legislated or subject to any scrutiny. That would be like someone telling Mrs. Rowling that she can't write the next Harry Potter book because she is encroaching on book sales for other young sorcerer genre books. You better belive how many pissed off little children and big kids like me there would be if that came to pass. Or more appropriately she has to rip Ron Weasley (a main character in the series) out of the storyline because she is leveraging her young sorcerer genre monopoly to enter another market (genre) for redhead sidekick/hero's. Sounds pretty silly doesn't it?
Think about it. |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 5:18:50 PM |
|
Sounds pretty silly, Red because it would never happen and doesn't parallel Microsoft at all. What gets me are the people that say this creates an awful precedent when in fact, everything MS has been found liable for is under Section 2--so any precedent, if any precedent is actually established, it is only for those companies who do acquire monopoly power in their market. In which case, I don't see much of a problem--yes, if Sun, Red Hat, AOL, Apple ever get to Microsoft's position they should be subject to similar scrutiny. Until that time happens, we are discussing a very unique monopoly, which should probably be treated individually, being prosecuted under existing precedents. Yes, it sucks--companies without illegal monopolies can do things that Microsoft CAN't do because they are a monopoly, get over it, it's the law.
If you have READ the Appeals Court ruling, by the way, one of the best parts is the judges' response to MS's IP claim--that they can do whatever they want with it. Their response: "Microsoft's argument borders on the frivolous. It amounts to saying that if you beat your neighbor over the head with your own bat that you are immune to any tort claims." (Who said judges don't have a sense of humor!) However, it was the per se tying claim that actually contained any potential for damaging precedent and that isn't being pursued. None of the legal arguments set any insane or scary precedent--they are actually all derived from longstanding Antitrust precedents. As for the remedy phase, it should be treated as a per case response to issues that must be resolved, but which would probably be resolved entirely differently for another company under other sets of circumstances. |
| #10 By 4209 (163.192.21.14) at 3/4/2002 5:29:15 PM |
| I have commented from the begining of this waste of taxpayers money, that MS should just shut it doors. They should only remain open to offer support for a time and then be gone. Bill and all the investors would still be rich and the rest of the world will have to deal with not having an OS that is compatable with most systems and has tons of Apps written for it. Everyone can have Linux and Mac OS. If it were me I would do that, just because the DOJ and the government was screwing me. Didn't anyone in the government ever hear of not biting the hand that feeds you. Come on the US Government is MS's biggest client. Once again it is just a big waste of the taxpayers money. I for one am sick of it, as MS will win in the long run. If split up, it is two monopolies, if made to have a stripped down version of the OS they will still be a monopoly. The only way they will not be a monopoly is if they shutdown there operations. Let some other Software maker deal with it. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 5:50:06 PM |
|
So what exactly is your point, mctwin? They are a monopoly but monopolies shouldn't be illegal. They're a monopoly and should be allowed to continue because YOU like them. Not biting the hand that feeds you? Are you suggesting that our government should serve the interests of Microsoft now, because we owe MS something? You think our government should be allowed to be threatened by MS because they have become dependent on them? I don't get it. What is your point? This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, March 04, 2002 at 17:51. |
| #12 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/4/2002 5:58:41 PM |
|
From the Appeals court ruling. Section IV labeled Tying....
"While every "business relationship" will in some sense have unique features, some represent entire, novel categories of dealings. As we shall explain, the arrangement before us is an example of the latter, offering the first up-close look at the technological integration of added functionality into software that serves as a platform for third-party applications. There being no close parallel in prior antitrust cases, simplistic application of per se tying rules carries a serious risk of harm. Accordingly, we vacate the District Court's finding of a per se tying violation and remand the case. Plaintiffs may on remand pursue their tying claim under the rule of reason." Further proof that sodajerk has no clue what he is talking about... |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 5:59:38 PM |
| Can't you people come up with real scenarios. MLB is actually 30 separate companies, all competing with each other. Give it a break, and try to prove how Microsoft isn't a monopoly. The "well, they do it too" argument is pathetic, nevermind that it isn'trelevent to any other companies that aren't monopolies. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 6:06:46 PM |
| Duh, soda? again, great FUD. I specifically stated that they remanded the per se tying claim. Can you prove that they didn't find the elimination of add/remove and code commingling under article 2 illegal as I have SPECIFICALLY said about 100 times now. |
| #15 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/4/2002 6:11:53 PM |
|
No apology sodajerk? What's up with this?
|
| #16 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 6:17:38 PM |
|
The quotes I'd like to include from the Appeals Court decision are too long to post. When I edit them down, you'll see my response.
|
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 6:20:33 PM |
|
[I'm in brackets, the rest is the Appeals Court text, minus citations.]
[T]he District Court['s] findings of fact ... center upon three specific actions Microsoft took to weld IE to Windows: [1] excluding IE from the "Add/Remove Programs" utility; [2] designing Windows so as in certain circumstances to override the user's choice of a default browser other than IE; and [3] commingling code related to browsing and other code in the same files, so that any attempt to delete the files containing IE would, at the same time, cripple the operating system. [W]e consider first whether the suspect actions had an anticompetitive effect, and then whether Microsoft has provided a procompetitive justification for them. [1] The DISTRICT COURT first condemned as anticompetitive Microsoft's decision to exclude IE from the "Add/Remove Programs" utility in Windows 98. This change reduces the usage share of rival browsers not by making Microsoft's own browser more attractive to consumers, but, rather, by discouraging OEMs from distributing rival products. Because Microsoft's conduct, through something other than competition on the merits, has the effect of significantly reducing usage of rival's products and hence protecting its own operating system monopoly, it is anticompetitive... [2] Second the DISTRICT COURT found that Microsoft designed Windows 98... [to] overrid[e] the user's choice of a browser other than IE as his or her default browser... Plaintiffs argue that this override harms the competitive process by deterring consumers from using a browser other than IE even though they might prefer to do so, thereby reducing rival browsers' usage share and, hence, the ability of rival browsers to draw developer attention... Microsoft does not deny, of course, that overriding the user's preference prevents some people from using other browsers. [They couldn't even defend themselves; I love how the Appeals Court through in "of course!"] Because the override reduces rival's usage share and protects Microsoft's monopoly, it too is anticompetitive. [3] Finally, the District Court condemned Microsoft's decision to bind IE to Windows 98 "by placing code specific to Web browsing in the same files as code that provided operating system functions." Microsoft denies, as a factual matter, that it commingled browsing and non-browsing code, and it maintains the District Court's findings to the contrary are clearly erroneous. According to Microsoft, its expert "testified without contradiction that 'the very same code in Windows 98 that provides web browsing functionality' also performs essential operating system functions--not code in the same files, but the very same software code." Microsoft's expert did not testify to the effect "without contradiction," however... One of Microsoft's own documents suggests as much... (under seal)... (Microsoft document indicating some functions in SHDOCVW.DLL can be described as "IE only," others can be described as "shell only" and still others can be described as providing both "IE" and "shell" functions)... Accordingly, we reject Microsoft's argument... and we conclude that such commingling deters OEM from pre-installing rival browsers, thereby reducing the rivals' usage share and, hence, developers' interest in rivals APIs as an alternative to the API set exposed by Microsoft's operating system. Microsoft proffers no justification for two of the three challenged actions that it took in integrating IE into Windows--excluding IE from the Add/Remove Programs utility and commingling browser and operating system code. Nor does it argue that either excluding IE from the Add/Remove Programs utility or commingling code achieves any integrative benefit... Microsoft failed to meet its burden of showing that its conduct serves a purpose other than protecting its operating system monopoly. [MS gives a good technical reason for override] |
| #18 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 3/4/2002 8:06:01 PM |
|
It's interesting that you keep changing the subject, sodajerk and yet still do not profer an apology.
|
| #19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 8:42:26 PM |
|
How did I avoid the subject, soda? Again, I've said the section1 per se tying claim was remanded, but under article 2, monopolization, MS was found guilty of anticompetitive action by "bundling" IE with Windows by (1) removing it from the Add/Remove utility and (2) commingling code which was not shared by both systems (shell and IE). This is obvious stuff, it takes up about 5 pages in the court decision, under section II. B. 2. (II. B. 1. deals with OEMS, 3 deals with ICPs, ISVs, etc.. and Apple).
I don't see how I'm changing the subject, soda; I've been focused on it for months, but you keep ignoring it and lying. So which is it: you haven't read the decision or you're lying? |
| #20 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/4/2002 9:28:06 PM |
| I've been reading the Ballmer depo and it reminds me of you sodablue so I figured out how to say it nice and clear: in Section II. B. 2. of the Appeals Court ruling, does it find two actions specifically to be illegal? If so, what are they? |
| #21 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 3/5/2002 1:33:32 AM |
|
It's interesting to note that jerky boy lost his tying argument, and has now decided to argue an obscure point out of the appeals decision which is addressed by the DOJ settlement with Microsoft.
No, quit changing the subject. You've been arguing for months now that the tying of IE with Windows was found illegal, despite the fact that the appeals court clearly stated that such an argument cannot be made without reason for Microsoft obviously has a necessity to improve the product, which means adding functionality. I'm still waiting for my apology. Why are you so reluctant? I'm also getting tired of trying to read through the messages here and keep confusing my name with your psuedonym. I think it's time to start a new account. |
| #22 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 12:23:00 PM |
| I haven't changed my argument, and I've said over and over the tying claim was remanded but that commingling code in IE and Windows wazs found illegal. I provided quotes, and I asked you to read the specific section so that you could tell me whether or not 2 things re: bundling were found illegal. Why can't you answer the question, soda? I said I'd change my name if you would actually state the fact that commingling code was found illegal--until then, it is you who is spreading simply ridiculous FUD and calling me a liar. I don't see how you could read these posts and say I've changed my argument, am attempting to read into obscure Appeals Court material, or am lying. |
| #23 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/5/2002 12:43:59 PM |
|
Oh bullshit, you've been saying over and over again that Microsoft violated the law by tying Internet Explorer to Windows, and I've pointed over and over again that you are wrong.
Furthermore you quote sections out of context. If you read on, it seems clear that the Appeals court questions the findings on commingling, but does not feel they are in a position to completely vacate the decision: "In view of the contradictory testimony in the record, some of which supports the District Court's finding that Microsoft commingled browsing and non-browsing code, we cannot conclude that the finding was clearly erroneous. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985) ("If the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.")." But back to the tying issue which has been the basis of your argument from day 1 until you started to change direction... The court clearly states that the market shows procompetivie justification for increasing the functionality of the OS. They then point out that other vendors also include browsers within their OS... "If OS vendors without market power also sell their software bundled with a browser, the natural inference is that sale of the items as a bundle serves consumer demand and that unbundled sale would not, for otherwise a competitor could profitably offer the two products separately and capture sales of the tying good from vendors that bundle." Go back and reread section IV on the Tying issue. I'm really really getting sick of your lies and FUD. And I'm still waiting for my apology, jerk. |
| #24 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/5/2002 1:22:35 PM |
|
You are the one who is saying that I'm lying and changing my story--I haven't: the tying claim was remanded but it was still found illegal to commingle the code. The entire Section II B of the Appeals Court ruling follows the same procedure: was it anticompetitive; if so, does MS have a justification. If you read Section II B 2, they raise three actions as potentially anticompetitive and illegal practives, they find all three to qualify as anticompetitive, they only find MS justification for the override action but not the Add/Remove and commingling of code.
Even though the Appeals Court recognize that the evidence is ambiguous, they put the burden on MS to prove that it was justified, which the AC finds evidence from MS themselves which is contradictory and supports the argument that there was no justification. The issues that the Appeals Court raises about tying are irrelevent to the Section 2 claim and they even discuss how in one instance the action can be illegal and in the other instance they are unwilling to make a decision. All I ask is that you admit that commingling code was found illegal under Article 2 (you can find this in Section II B 2 of the AC decision). This has nothing to do with an article 1 tying claim, and if you persist in saying that I'm arguing that, you are just FUDing. SO can you actually address MY point and not your made up one, and can you admit that it was found illegal? That's all I ask, and if you can do so, I'll change my name. |
| #25 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/5/2002 7:30:16 PM |
|
What? Bah, of course they found that illegal. It's right there in the text of the appeals decision.
But we aren't talking about that. We are talking about your continued FUD that tying internet explorer to Windows is illegal under the Sherman act. Like I said, quit changing the topic of the discussion when you get caught losing the argument, that's all I ask. I don't care about the name, I'm going to stop using sodablue since you have befouled it with your excrement. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 164 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:55:10 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
