Microsoft to Win Anti-trust case

MickAB

If you look at some of the comments at the bottom of the article, you can see that the author is as skewed in his opinion as Judge Jackson is alleged to have been during the trial. I can see this degenerating into another 'Microsoft is good" "Microsoft is bad" argument. But, as usual, the Microsoft PR machine works pefectly. The fact remains that Microsoft conducted sharp business practices. The focus of this judicial analysis seems to be on Jacksons conduct, which I agree was flawed. He used his position to leverage his publicity. But, just to remind all you folks out there who seem to have an attention-span of 5 minutes. What about the DOS licensing issue (i.e. every P.C. reseller had to pay M$ even if they didn't ship with a Microsoft OS?) What about the hidden DOS hooks that flagged if Windows 3.1 was running over a non-Microsoft OS (remember that? users would get a warning message saying their machine was 'potentially unstable'). What about current trend of Microsoft spokespersons claiming that open source (Linux) is *bad* for the computer industry? D'uh? A finer example of double-speak I can't imagine Never mind the entire web-browser debacle. You guys posting here should do some backround research into the history of MS, it makes interesting reading. But just to let you know, I'm a software developer who uses Microsoft products on Microsoft Operating systems. I also know that Linux is a pain in the a** to setup and configure ( especially if you come from a Windows background :) ). "You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil has to be lead"

l a u r e n

damn straight again i dont remember anyone putting a gun to my head and saying "you will use and develop software based on microsoft products" ... i do because a). most of my clients require that, and b). because mostly they better than the rest at what they are designed for (religious debates excepted of course) :suss: --- "every year we invent better idiot proof systems and every year they invent better idiots"

Lost User

Also don't forget: - Microsoft charged Gateway (and other companies) an extra $10 per copy of Windows to punish them for putting Netscape on their machines. - Microsoft threatened IBM that they would not be able to purchase Windows unless they stopped shipping their Lotus Suite on their machines. - Microsoft threatened Apple that they would stop developing MS Word for the Mac if they did not use Internet Explorer for their browser on the Mac. - Microsoft claims that IE is tied to the OS, but they continue to distribute it as a separate product (and call it by a separate name). - Microsoft was caught fabricating evidence during the trial when demonstating the performance of IE on machines where the browser was separated from the OS. An honest mistake I'm sure. - Microsoft personnel stated during the trial that they, for the most part, only had written records of their pricing strategies for the different OEMs while Billy Gates writes a book (Business at the Speed of Thought) bragging about how computerized their company is. I'm not trying to bash here...just making a statement of the facts that came out of the case. I too program on the Windows platform because it is currently the most viable platform. I just feel that Microsoft needs to re-exam their business tactics and drop the paranoia mindset.

Erik Funkenbusch

The system is biased towards the defendant. I believe the mantra is something like "It's better that 100 criminals go free than for 1 innocent be wrongly convicted". It may suck that murderers and rapists go free on technicalities, but would you rather the police be able to point a finger at anyone they like and for judges to be able to convice anyone they want simply because they don't like them? Further, much of what MS stands accused of is subjective. In one persons eyes, it's competition, in anothers it's domination. The lines have to be clearly drawn about what is and isn't acceptable behavior, and much of what Anti-trust law is comes down to a judge deciding what is and isn't illegal. There is no way MS or anyone else can know what a judge will and will not decide is illegal. For instance, Restrictive contracts aren't in themselves illegal, only when used by a monopoly to do certain things to they become so. And while it may seem obvious to us that MS is a Monopoly, at what stage did MS gain that Monopoly? Clearly they didn't have one in 1975 when they were founded, but when did they cross the line? If you can't define that, how can you expect MS to know when they are one, and when special rules apply to them that do not apply to their competitors? It's simply not as clear cut as many people like to think it is.

Erik Funkenbusch

Perhaps you're the one that should understand the issues. MS signed a consent decree in 1994 covering the issues you bring up. This trial does not cover that in any way, since the consent decree was MS's acknowledging that those practices were bad and that they would no longer do them. The government was satisfied with this and still is. As for the comments about Open Source, if you had read the clarification that MS posted about it, you'd understand their point. Their point was not about Open Source, but about the GPL in particular and it's viral-like nature. The GPL prohibits it's use in anything but other GPL software, which effectively ends the software business as we know it if it becomes the rule rather than exception. That *IS* bad for the software industry. Further, he was complaining that many government (read taxpayer funded) projects develop GPL'd code, which prohibits many classes of taxpayers from using the code that they paid for in their tax dollars. Finally, Sharp Business practices aren't illegal. It's only when you cross a certain, magical line that isn't clearly defined in any legal text and can only be decided by a judge, that certain practices become illegal.

Erik Funkenbusch

- I can find no record of this extra $10 charged to gateway in any of the court documents. Where did you get this from? - MS threatened not to license Windows 95 to IBM due to the fact that IBM had fudged their license payments for Windows 3.1 and owed MS millions. This had nothing to do with Lotus (who IBM had *JUST* purchased a few weeks earlier, and they certainly weren't shipping it when the talks were going on, so they couldn't "stop" what they weren't doing). MS offered to forgive their past infractions if they agreed to not ship OS/2 on their PC's, which I agree was not very ethical, but the fact remains that they were in violation of their licensing for Win 3.1 and MS had every right to deny them licensing because of it. - All the talk about apple is conjecture. There is no testimony sworn in court that MS threatened Apple. Further, the idea that Office is only a good product because the developers have access to the source of Windows flies in the face of Office being the preferred product on the Mac. - IE, as it is designed, *IS* tied to the OS in many ways. No, it doesn't *HAVE* to be, but it is. Shipping as a seperate product doesn't change the fact that once installed, the two products are irreparably joined, and Windows 98 *DOES* require IE to function completely, since the help system is entirely in HTML and many parts (such as the ActiveDesktop) require IE to function as advertised. - Jim Allchin's testimony that involved the videos was poorly executed. I don't think it was anyone's intention to fabricate evidence, but rather to speed up the process by filming multiple computers and splicing them together in a final piece of evidence. Allchin asked for, and received permission from the judge to re-do the tapes, and the judge accepted MS's redone evidence and accepted Allchin's testimony that what the tapes did in fact show the real results even if it was with multiple computers. In other words, if the judge accepted the evidence, why should you reject it? - No MS employee stated anything about their records. Richard Schmalanese, their economist expert stated this, which may well have been his knowledge of it, but since he's not an employee he really wasn't in a position to make such a statement. I agree with you that MS needs to stop acting like every little threat is life or death, but then, in their eyes, that's how they got to be where they are, by taking advantage of the fact that their competitors didn't respond quickly to every threat. MS's biggest fear is turnin

Lost User

You really seem to know the details of the case. I relied on journalists (primarily MSNBC, Jim Clark's "Netscape Time", and the recent Wired article) to fill me in with the facts during the trial. They seem to present the issues in a different light, or perhaps I'm just getting old and forgetful.;) Much is hearsay and probably misinterpreted.

Lost User

Here's the answer to your first point (from the Finding of Fact). As I recall, the value was reported at $10 extra per copy (again hearsay, so the reported value could be wrong): 130. The discriminatory treatment that the IBM PC Company received from Microsoft on account of the "software directions" of its parent company also manifested itself in the royalty price that IBM paid for Windows. In the latter half of the 1990s, IBM (along with Gateway) paid significantly more for Windows than other major OEMs (like Compaq, Dell, and Hewlett-Packard) that were more compliant with Microsoft’s wishes.

Andrew Torrance

Microsoft IS the new IBM ! I write programs for industry . The decision to buy Microsoft OS and products is largely driven by the fact that they all work together , or at least are perceived to do so . Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft. :-O

MickAB

Tried to reply to this post yesterday, but something went wrong with the submission, but anyway. I was pointing out that the responses to the journalist who made the original posting made interesting reading. But it's nice to see people care enough about Microsoft to stand up for what they represent. "Sharp Business practices aren't illegal. It's only when you cross a certain, magical line that isn't clearly defined in any legal text and can only be decided by a judge, that certain practices become illegal." Perhaps a judge is necessary to ratify the exact legal and financial ramifications of such practices, but actions such as spreading lies and innuendo about competitors' products I think should be dealt with more harshly. And to be frank, I don't believe Microsoft will desist from sharp-practices after their slap on the wrist, they will simply become more circumspect about their actions. I would put more, but other people have responded to your comments with more eloquence.;P In a dog-eat-dog world, when you get to be top-dog, you're still a mutt.

Erik Funkenbusch

Actually, I could care less about MS themselves. My point is that I most of the things MS is accused of are not in and of themselves illegal. Sure, many might be immoral, but that's not something to sue them over. They only become illegal once certain conditions are met, and (at least in my opinion) as long as a company hasn't been legally declared to be a monopoly, they shouldn't be held to a monopoly standard. Since "being a monopoly" is not clearly defined in law, it's a judgement that has to be made. How else does one know when they are a monopoly or not? If the court cannot say "You became a monopoly on this date", how do you draw a line and say that things you did before that date are legal, and things you did after that date are not? Companies are allowed, by law, to say many things about their products, in the name of advertising. For instance, I can say "The #1 choice" legally, even if it's not. This is known as chest pounding, and is expected. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "spreading lies and inuendo". What are you referring to specifically?

Erik Funkenbusch

MS may be the new IBM in terms of popularity, but they aren't in terms of structure and the way they run their business. At one time, in order to get a new project approved at IBM, it took something like 27 different committee's to approve it.

Erik Funkenbusch

That's pretty vague for a "Findings of Fact", I guess that's why the Chief Appellate Judge Edwards called the FoF "Absolutely Unclear". In any event, it's really hard to say what factors actually came into play, since volume and past compliance with licensing effect the negotiations (not to mention the negotiating skill of the negotiator). When you buy a car, you negotiate for the final price you pay. Some people pay list, some people pay less, and even others are able to pay substantially less simply through their negotiating skills.

MickAB

Hi, back again..... (And modified to remove scurrilous comments!) New comments in bold or italic (or both) "My point is that I most of the things MS is accused of are not in and of themselves illegal. Sure, many might be immoral, but that's not something to sue them over." I got the impression that the whole trial was a knee-jerk industry reaction, I'm sure a lot of competitors were looking for a reason to tame Microsoft. From that point of view I think the whole trial was a wasted opportunity, because the wrong issues were debated and the judge made himself look like he was just in it for his own gain. "If the court cannot say "You became a monopoly on this date", how do you draw a line and say that things you did before that date are legal, and things you did after that date are not? " Like I said, I think it was an industry reaction of too little too late. In my opinion the whole anti-trust argument was a legal mechanism for interested parties to try to stick it to MS. "Companies are allowed, by law, to say many things about their products, in the name of advertising. For instance, I can say "The #1 choice" legally, even if it's not. This is known as chest pounding, and is expected." That's something along the lines of what I meant by "spreading lies and innuendo". I think this type of practice should be subject to closer scrutiny. Not coming from or having lived in the States I can't make any valid comments, but in Europe, advertising practices like this are a little fairer. So lying in advertising is protected by the Law? But anyway, I think I've spent enough time on this, I'd rather make a post to help someone with a coding prob. than debate this any further.;) The only thing I want to add is that I think Microsoft practice a double standard as far as intellectual property is concerned. They have never been averse to ripping off other peoples product. (Stacker?) I'm sure there are many more, but I can't remember off the top of my head). It's interesting to consider that if any of technology Microsoft manufacture was subject to the GPL, then they would have been forced to withdraw the product or release it into the public-domain. Now that's got to scare Bill.:suss: Interesting commentary which I heard before, but couldn't trace the source, about the development of Altair Basic: Someone else's intellectual property was used without compensation (Dartmouth BASIC, donated to the public domain). Development was done by "borrowin

Erik Funkenbusch

Be careful about acusing people (or companies) of stealing. MS didn't steal any code from Stac, they did, however, violate their compression patent (which is entirely different. You can create two programs with entirely different code but still have them both follow the same patent). MS in turn sued Stac for reverse engineering their DoubleSpace API hooks to allow Stacker to work on the boot drive. Both Stac and MS won their suits. I've never heard of this Quicktime issue. What are you talking about specifically here? This is kind of my point, people blindly believe all kinds of stuff about MS without blinking an eye, your belief that MS had stolen Stac's code is an example of that.