Microsoft fined $613 millon.

[GeorgeWBush]

I don't know if sombody else has done this but EU did.


MSNBC N
MSNBC NewsAlerts_|_Newsletters_|_Help_
BusinessStocks & EconomyPersonal FinanceLocal Business NewsU.S. Business NewsInt'l Business NewsFinancial TimesForbesBusinessWeekCNBC TVAutomotive NewsOil and EnergySpecial ReportsSmall Business
NewsBusinessSportsTech / ScienceEntertainmentHealthTravelOpinionsWeatherLocal NewsNewsweekToday ShowNightly NewsDateline NBCMeet the PressMSNBC TVNews VideoMSNBC Shopping
Search MSNBC:
Advanced Search
EU orders Microsoft
to pay $613 million fine
Software giant found guilty
of abusing ‘near monopoly’
FREE VIDEO
•E.U. fines Microsoft
March 24: E.U. Competition Commissioner Mario Monti announces the decision by the European Commission that Microsoft is guilty of violating antitrust rules.
CNBC
CNBC
MSNBC staff and news service reports
BRUSSELS, Belgium - European regulators Wednesday slapped Microsoft with a record $613 million penalty for anticompetitive business practices and ordered the software giant to strip media software from its popular operating systems.
The European Union's sanctions go well beyond the U.S. antitrust settlement, and set up what could be another lengthy court battle.
Microsoft called the EU’s decision “unwarranted and ill-considered,� and said it expected to ask a judge to suspend the order pending appeal.
The move, together with an order to open its software for running business computer networks, could give rivals a leg up in their fight to compete with Microsoft and force fundamental changes in how the world’s biggest software maker does business.
“We are simply assuring that anyone who develops new software has a fair opportunity to compete in the marketplace,� EU Competition Commissioner Mario Monti said.
Monti said he limited the order to Europe in deference to regulators in the United States and other countries, but that doing so “will not unduly undermine the effectiveness,� given the size of the European market. Microsoft, which had $32 billion in revenue last year, does about 20 percent of its business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
_Related story
FT: EU's Monti discusses Microsoft ruling
However, late Wednesday, the U.S. Justice Department’s antitrust chief said the huge fine the EU imposed on Microsoft was “unfortunate� and other sanctions against the company could have “unintended consequences.�
“Sound antitrust policy must avoid chilling innovation and competition even by ’dominant’ companies,â€� Assistant Attorney General Hewitt Pate said in a statement.Â_
Easing the squeeze
The EU antitrust office said it sought to alter Microsoft’s behavior because its five-year investigation found that the software giant tried to squeeze competitors out of Windows-related markets and “the illegal behavior is still ongoing.�
It gave the company 90 days to offer European computer manufacturers a version of Windows stripped of the company’s digital media player, software for viewing video and listening to music that is expected to become pivotal in the industry as multimedia content becomes more pervasive.
__TIMELINEEU's pursuit of Microsoft
Key dates in Microsoft's relationship with EU antitrust regulators:
July 1994EU and U.S. Justice Department settle allegations about Microsoft's software licensing and marketing behavior. Microsoft agrees to stop making computer-makers pay a fee for every unit sold, regardless of whether it contained Microsoft software.Nov. 1997EU forces Microsoft to release Santa Cruz Operation Inc. from a contract that requires it to include Microsoft code in its UNIX operating system and pay royalties whether it used code or not.March 1998EU makes Microsoft alter licensing agreements with Internet service providers that allegedly violate competition rules.MayU.S. Justice Department and 20 states sue Microsoft, charging it thwarted competition to extend monopoly.Oct. U.S. Justice Department sues Microsoft, alleging it violated 1994 consent decree by forcing computer-makers to sell its Internet browser as a condition of selling Windows.Dec. EU begins investigating complaints from Sun Microsystems that Microsoft withheld software code rivals needed for their server software to interface as well as Microsoft's own.Feb. 2000EU begins investigating complaints that Windows 2000 would give Microsoft dominant position in e-commerce.April U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson finds Microsoft violated U.S. antitrust law and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market.June Jackson orders the breakup of Microsoft into two companies.Aug.EU sends formal charge sheet accusing Microsoft of abusing its Windows monopoly to dominate the market for server software.April 2001EU closes investigation into Microsoft's investments in European digital cable TV. Company agrees to modify agreements.June U.S. appeals court throws out Jackson's breakup order.Aug. EU sends new charge sheet to Microsoft stemming from Windows 2000 case, accusing it of violating antitrust law by tying its media player into Windows. It also merges the case with the charges regarding server market.Oct. Microsoft and the U.S. Justice Department tentatively agree to settle U.S. antitrust case.March 2002Microsoft proposes concessions to EU that it says go beyond those agreed to in the United States to help rivals' equipment operate with Windows.Nov. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly approves most provisions of Microsoft's settlement with the U.S. government. It prohibits Microsoft from retaliating against computer-makers, allows customers remove icons for Microsoft features and requires that Microsoft disclose more technical data to software developers.Jan. 2003Computer, phone and Internet companies file a EU complaint charging Windows XP is designed to extend Microsoft's dominance into new markets such as instant messaging and mobile phones.Aug. Backed by new evidence it says show ongoing abuses, EU sends third charge sheet to Microsoft and gives it "last chance" to defend itself before demanding changes in Windows.Jan. 2004Mario Monti, antitrust chief of the European Union, prepares a draft ruling against Microsoft.Feb.Monti rejects Microsoft's offer to include rival digital media software on CD-ROMs sold with Windows. He drafts a ruling that calls for Microsoft to offer computer makers discounted Windows minus its media player and sends it to national regulators for review.March 15Advisory committee of EU national regulators unanimously backs Monti's draft decision.March 16Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer holds face-to-face talks with Monti.March 18EU says talks failed, decision to be adopted against Microsoft March 24.March 24European regulators found Microsoft guilty of anticompetitive practices and ordered the software giant to pay a record $613 million fine.
Source: The Associated Press• Print this
The EU also gave Microsoft 120 days to release “complete and accurate� information to rivals in the office server market so their products can work more smoothly with desktop computers running Windows.
“Microsoft has abused its virtual monopoly power over the PC desktop in Europe,� EU antitrust chief Mario Monti said. “We are simply ensuring that anyone who develops new software has a fair opportunity to compete in the marketplace.�
Microsoft’s general counsel, Brad Smith, said he would most likely ask the presiding judge at the European Court of First Instance to stay the order pending appeal â€" a process that can take years.
“The European Commission has the first word, but the European courts have the final word,� he said.
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, announcing a new speech server product in San Francisco on Wednesday, did not mention the EU case.
The fine would automatically be suspended upon appeal, but antitrust experts were divided on the company’s chances for winning emergency relief from the rest of the order.
“It will be up to Microsoft to show that this prohibition causes irreparable harm, which is not an easy thing to do,� said Jacques Bourgeois, a former commission legal adviser now in private practice.
Others noted, however, that the commission would have to show that further delay could result in irreparable harm to competitors, such as the danger they could go out of business. And the court has shown sympathy to arguments about threats to intellectual property rights.
“If it’s later ruled that the commission was wrong� to make Microsoft disclose information to rivals, “how do they put the genie back into the bottle?� said Stephen Kinsella, an international business expert with the Herbert Smith law firm in Brussels.
Microsoft sees legal battle
The fine came after settlement talks collapsed last week when the two sides failed to agree on Microsoft’s future business practices.
At stake was whether Microsoft would agree on general rules over software bundling for future disputes.
FREE VIDEO
•Microsoft reacts to ruling
March 24: Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith discusses the impact of the decision by the European Commission to impose sanctions and a $613 million fine on the software company.
CNBC
“That’s what Microsoft is really worried about,� said Matt Rosoff, analyst at Directions on Microsoft, an independent research firm based in Kirkland, Washington.
Microsoft’s Smith said a negotiated settlement would have yielded immediate action. Instead, he predicted a protracted legal battle.
“Instead of getting immediate action in 2004 we are now on a path to get a result in 2009,� he said.
Monti said the decision gave manufacturers freedom to choose which software they installed in personal computers to play films and music. It did not mean consumers would get PCs and operating systems without a media player, he said.
Monti said it was important to have a decision that would make it easier and quicker to act on future complaints.
The Commission will appoint a special monitoring trustee to ensure the two versions of Windows work equally well, and that information given to rivals is complete.
The EU’s ruling follows a decade of investigations and settlements on narrower issues without any formal findings against the software company.
It mirrors a decision by a U.S. appeals court in 2001 that Microsoft broke antitrust rules. Critics said that decision failed to spur vigorous competition.
The Commission's fine exceeds the record 462 million euro penalty imposed on Switzerland’s Hoffman-La Roche AG in 2001 for leading a vitamin cartel.
Two European court decisions have gone against Monti in recent years. If this decision holds, the changes in how Microsoft operates could have a greater impact than the fine, which amounts to just over 1 percent of Microsoft’s $53 billion cash pile.
The ruling would force Microsoft to offer two versions of Windows, one with Media Player and one without, and would prevent it from offering discounts to computer makers that install the bundled version.
“For the first time in five years (PC makers) are not going to be forced to include Windows Media Player,� said RealNetworks deputy general counsel Dave Stewart, whose firm has lost market share to Microsoft.
Sticking point
Settlement talks broke down last week over the EU’s insistence on just such a precedent-setting element: preventing Microsoft from adding features such as Google-like search to future versions of Windows.
Smith argued that Microsoft’s settlement proposal, which he said included an offer to release a worldwide Windows version that included three competing media players besides its own, would have been more useful to consumers than the penalties.
He called the order to produce a version of Windows without media software an “unwarranted and ill-considered� violation of intellectual property rights under World Trade Organization rules.
Doing so, he said, would be difficult and make other features and even some Web sites work less effectively.
The company made similar claims in the U.S. case, which surrounded Microsoft’s inclusion of its Internet Explorer Web browser in Windows.
Microsoft was also found guilty of monopolistic behavior in the U.S. case, but the EU order strikes deeper, at the heart of Microsoft’s business strategy â€" regularly adding new features to Windows to help sell upgrades.
The Redmond, Wash.-based company argues that such “bundling� benefits consumers. Rivals call it unfair competition, given that Windows runs more than 90 percent of personal computers worldwide.
The ruling could boost other makers of media software, led by RealNetworks Inc. and Apple Computer Inc. Bob Kimball, RealNetworks’ general counsel, said the EU decision “confirms the merit� of his company’s private antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft.
Reuters and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Â_© 2004 MSNBC Interactive
_MORE FROM INT'L BUSINESS NEWS
ECB hints at possible April rate cut
• EU fines Microsoft record $613 million• ECB hints at possible April rate cut• Viacom to set up first China TV venture• Coke pulls its bottled water from U.K.• Dozens named in near collapse of Italian dairy giant• EU proposes crackdown on auditors• Novartis considers bid for Aventis• LG Card reports $4.8 billion loss in 2003• BellSouth to sell Latin American units• Int'l Business News Section FrontÂ_
•Clarke: Government 'failed you'•U.S. soldier killed in Iraq attack•Microsoft fined record $613 million•Bryant accuser testifies•Hamas targets Sharon, not U.S.
EDITOR'S CHOICE
•Clark's hard driving style•Signs of Martian seas detected•Tears during 'Frasier' finale•Iraq one year later•NCAA brackets, capsules
LIVE QUOTE
Microsoft Corporation (MSFT)
_ PRICECHANGE__ 24.41+0.26_
•_Company Report
•_Stock Scouter
•_Add this stock to your watch list
Data: MSN Money and IDC Comstock delayed 20 min.
Cover | News | Business | Sports | Tech/Science | Entertainment | Travel | Health | Opinions | Weather | Local News | Newsweek | Today Show | Nightly News | Dateline NBC | Meet the Press | MSNBC TV
About MSNBC.com | Newsletters | Search | Help | News Tools | Jobs | Contact Us | Terms and Conditions | Privacy
©2003 MSNBC.com
MSN - More Useful EverydayFeedback_|_Help
MSNBC N

 

[p_p_man]

They reckon the appeal...

is going to take another 5 years to come to court.

By that time many other companies with cheaper and more effective media programs for sale will probably go broke...

ppman

 

[GeorgeWBush]

Re: They reckon the appeal...

is going to take another 5 years to come to court.

By that time many other companies with cheaper and more effective media programs for sale will probably go broke...

ppman

Yea but if the companies that bitch about microsoft would have made there products better then things would be different.

My mom had three different operating systems on her computer the third was microsofts and it was the best so they kept it.

My mom worked for the military.

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

Have you forgotten that the Clinton Justice Department's attack on Microsoft is what burst the dot-com bubble?

And came at the behest of a Clinton campaign donor named Ellison...

Prior to that time, Microsoft had no lobbyists in Washington and we did not even know what party Bill Gates belonged to. Boy did they teach him to toe the line! Now he gives them lots of support and they leave him alone and pick on Walmart...

Sound a little like the tactics of one REV'RUND JES-sie Jaaaaaaaaaaack-SON?

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

Now EU politicians want donations too!

Cost of buisiness. Bribing the government to leave you the fawk alone...

 

[GeorgeWBush]

Now EU politicians want donations too!

Cost of buisiness. Bribing the government to leave you the fawk alone...

Yea all it comes down to is money gates has a lot lets blame him for our crapy product.

I wonder what the computer, internet, and all the products dealing with computer's would be like now if bill gates did not come along.

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

One needs look no further than Linux...

Actually, Apple would be the dominant life-form. They both ripped off Windows from the same source.

 

[GeorgeWBush]

One needs look no further than Linux...

Actually, Apple would be the dominant life-form. They both ripped off Windows from the same source.

I just put a new operating system in my nieghbors apple and i hate it it's so confussing.

It's an older one but it does not have a my cumputer even with the books it's hard give me an ibm compatible anytime.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: They reckon the appeal...

is going to take another 5 years to come to court.

By that time many other companies with cheaper and more effective media programs for sale will probably go broke...

ppman

Yup on the appeals and that's only the first court of appeals. This could wind on for another 10 years easy.

As to the second part of your post I'm not at all sure. There are market dynamics involved here that are greater than Microsoft. Unless the users take a little responsibility Microsoft will continue to enjoy a dominant position in the market.

There already are many fine alternatives out there to Microsoft. The Linux community is really starting to mature. As is FreeBSD. The Mac OS X is a GREAT system and is putting Apple back in the race.

But here's the deal. The manufacturer's of equipment can cut one deal with one company, Microsoft, and bundle virtually all of the productivity software a company needs with one contract signing. It's convenient for the manufacturers to do this. Further, Microsofts products do integrate with each other well. They all have the same look and feel. This is convenient for the users and many people, when confronted with the choice, will opt for the Microsoft solution because it's an easy decision to make.

Blaming Microsoft for the market choice of the customer base is a little disengenuous of the courts.

Here, where I sit, I'm using three different systems. I have a G3 running OS X, a couple of servers running FreeBSD, and a few Windows based systems. And the windows based systems are the machines that I use for general purpose work. As much of a pain in the ass that most MS software products are from a technical standpoint, they're convenient to use.

I don't particularly care for Bill or his company, but I do acknowledge the contribution that he's made to the computing public and I doubt that the market penetration of MS products would be substantially less even if they hadn't engaged in somewhat ruthless marketing tactics.

And the fact of the matter is that MS has led the way in many areas of personal computing. Companies and individuals purchase computers to improve their productivity. (At least those that didn't buy a computer to post at Lit. ) So every upgrade and new system purchase had to be justified by a increase in productivity. And for the most part that occured. So, if your productivity goes up, you are getting more work done per unit of labor and, in a properly managed company, higher profits or increased competitive pricing edge. It seems to me that going to a court room and talking about how much "Microsoft cost us" is a total disconnect with reality.

Ishmael

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

The EU is pretty much an exercise in dissconnection from reality...

They, of course, based their model on the UN.

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

I am glad our system was based on being unlike them...

 

[kellycummings]

They just need to leave Gates and Microsoft alone. It's jealousy, nothing more. They made a product that everyone wants. What's wrong with that. The whole media player thing seems silly to me. So what if it's bundled with windows. You can still use others if you choose. I do. I don't care what comes in my Windows package, I'll use what I want.

 

[p_p_man]

They just need to leave Gates and Microsoft alone. It's jealousy, nothing more. They made a product that everyone wants. What's wrong with that. The whole media player thing seems silly to me. So what if it's bundled with windows. You can still use others if you choose. I do. I don't care what comes in my Windows package, I'll use what I want.

Much of what the EU has done is targeted at giving consumers a choice. At the moment 90%+ computers work on the MS system with Media built in and given away gratis.

This still allows the consumer a choice of course but why change to a different Media when you already have one?

The reason MS brought out their own Media package with Windows is because Netscape Media was once the popular one. MS didn't like that, bundled their own and goodbye Netscape...

Less choice for us.

MS is now in talks to take over AoL (and the best of luck to them!) but once again, less choice for us.

We all see the danger of one company controlling everything and that's why the EU has made their ruling...

I think there will be others like this in the future.

ppman

 

[D.a.r.k~{FFA}]

Jesus, I don't even have that kind of money.

 

[kellycummings]

Much of what the EU has done is targeted at giving consumers a choice. At the moment 90%+ computers work on the MS system with Media built in and given away gratis.

This still allows the consumer a choice of course but why change to a different Media when you already have one?

The reason MS brought out their own Media package with Windows is because Netscape Media was once the popular one. MS didn't like that, bundled their own and goodbye Netscape...

Less choice for us.

MS is now in talks to take over AoL (and the best of luck to them!) but once again, less choice for us.

We all see the danger of one company controlling everything and that's why the EU has made their ruling...

I think there will be others like this in the future.

ppman

If consumers have a choice and choose not to take it then it isn't MS' fault. If they make a better product than Netscape and people buy it, that isn't their fault either. There are choices, lots of them, but people don't take them. You can't fault the top company for that.

 

[The Heretic]

Have you forgotten that the Clinton Justice Department's attack on Microsoft is what burst the dot-com bubble?

No - that is not what burst the dot.com bubble - what burst it was twofold:

1) Greenspan slamming on the brakes on the economy in general - he sent a number of us through the windshield because we weren't wearing our seatbelts.

2) There were a lot of people who finally realized that they had invested in companies that had no real plan for making any money other than touting the fact that they had a website.

Between those two, venture capital dried up and people sold their stock in any tech company remotely related to the internet.

In short, the dot.com bubble burst because it was a bubble that would have burst sooner or later. Microsoft had little if anything to do with that, except that they got hit too - but of all of the tech companies, MS survived halfway decently.

 

[The Heretic]

They just need to leave Gates and Microsoft alone. It's jealousy, nothing more. They made a product that everyone wants. What's wrong with that. The whole media player thing seems silly to me. So what if it's bundled with windows. You can still use others if you choose. I do. I don't care what comes in my Windows package, I'll use what I want.

It isn't jealousy, the problem is MS's biz practices which are downright unethical. Hell there have been cases where they have gone after the biz of the wife of one their competitors just because they were married.

MS has pissed off a lot of people over the years doing shit like that (and a hell of a lot more), and now it is coming back to haunt them. There are a lot of people in this area who will not work for MS because they (or someone they know) have in some way been burned by MS - and I don't blame them.

Of course, governments are quite willing to exploit those ill feelings towards MS to get money - the same way they went after tobacco. It doesn't mean that the people who were really hurt by MS will ever see a cent of it though.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

If they make a better product than Netscape and people buy it, that isn't their fault either.

But they didn't. They just bundled it in with Windows to stifle competition.

 

[The Heretic]

Re: Re: They reckon the appeal...

There already are many fine alternatives out there to Microsoft. The Linux community is really starting to mature. As is FreeBSD. The Mac OS X is a GREAT system and is putting Apple back in the race.

Apple is actually losing market share to Linux - even on the desktop. This is too bad because OS X is a very nice desktop system on top of Unix, but the problem is that Apple is still stuck in the mode where they think they are primarily a hardware manufacturer. Despite the fact that they are (for the moment) making a good profit and becoming very solvent - they need to learn the lesson everybody else has learned; the real money and marketshare is in software, not hardware.

If they don't sell OS X to run on Intel machines (and they have been working on it - people at Apple have seen OS X running on Intel boxes) sometime in the future, then they are going to continue to see shrinking marketshare. Sure they can survive quite readily because the market is still growing, but they are already marginalized, and will be increasingly so as Linux becomes more and more suitable for the consumer desktop.

Hell, MS is slowly losing desktop marketshare to Linux (just 1-2% though) - Apple can't afford to continue to lose marketshare because they have already slipped below 5%, with Linux now having a larger marketshare on the desktop.

The trend in hardware is towards less expensive and more powerful computers. I can buy a barebones 2+gHz Intel (okay, AMD box - close enough) box for under $200. I have seen computers given away as incentives for big screen televisions. Computer hardware is a commodity - it is the software that makes the money. The fact that Apple can buck that trend is just a momentary anomoly - it won't continue, and Apple will be faced with some tough decisions.

The problem is that they need to make those decisions now, not in the future. Sun is already working on a 3D desktop for Linux that is quite spiffy (imagine being able to treat an app window like a sheet of paper; to be able to grab a corner of it, turn it over and make notes on the backside), and is a lot more than just some throbbing Aqua buttons like OS X. Apple is losing market share now, and it takes time to get acceptance for something new - so they need to release OS X for Intel machines now, not a few years from now when it will be too little too late.

 

[Rodney King]

What ppman and Heretic said is really what it is all about!

In the early to mid 80s there were several versions of DOS around and for the times they all worked fairly similar. And you could add on other companies products (peripheral programs) and they would all work about the same.

Microsoft came out with the first version of windows towards the late 80s (which they stole from Apple) and started making the PC easier to use. Which a lot of us enjoyed. However, we all knew that Windows was an Apple ripoff.

Microsoft did help to make the PC a lot easier to use and to make it the dominant OS during the 90s. Helped along the way by Apple's proprietery systems which ended up hurting not only Apple, but the consumers choice. Well, I cannot feel sorry for Apple because they pretty much did this to themselves. Resigned themselves to becoming a second choice amongst the public.

Throughout the 1990s, Microsoft did improve their products and did help the PC platform become more user friendly and usable, which in turn did allow the PC platform to bypass Apple in the consumers choice.

However, along the way, as Microsoft gained greater market position, they refined their predatory practices of forcing computer makesr to only sell Microsoft products. Often threatning computer makes with retaliation of withholding Microsoft products if the computer makes dared to use another companies products on the systems they sold. During this time Microsoft bought up competing technologies, companies with competing products, or just downright forced other companies out of business. This is all well documented.

Until you arrive at the last 5 or 6 years and up to today, Microsoft has a stranglehold on the PC platform. And whenever a competitor does introduce a viable product, because of Microsofts business ethics, it is generally extremely difficut for them to get their product sold simply because if Microsoft sees it as a threat they will use bit of force they can muster to deter computer makes from including it with the computers they sell.

Microsoft does not like competition! They never have. If Microsoft has such great products then why don't they let them compete freely? Why doesn't Microsoft sell different versions of their Operating Systems, such as a basic Windows OS without any of the other extraneous programs attached so users can choose which other programs they want to use. Microsoft could sell whatever type of OS they wanted. Their is no logical reason that Microsoft can't sell more basic versions of Windows. Its all in the programming of the code. They claim that all of the extraneous programs Windows contain are to integrated into Windows it would destroy Windows to sell a basic version of Windows that was just an OS.

Well, this is just bullshit! As any computer programmer or experienced computer user knows. The only reason Microsoft doesn't sell a more basic version of Windows, is because they do not want consumers to try other companies products. They want to minimize this as much as possible.

This is also the same reason Microsoft doesn't want computer makes to offer other companies software on new computers. Microsoft feels threatened by other companies products and they want to minimize the possibility that consumers will try competing products for fear of losing their market position. Which is a monopoly!

And for those that think Microsoft is an original thinker, a truly innovative company pioneering new products, well then I would like to which product Microsoft sells that is truly an original innovative Microsoft idea. Just about every Microsoft product that is sold, from their original DOS, to Windows, Word, Excel, Internet Explorer, to their media player, is copy or a ripoff from other companies. Microsoft does not develop new programs or software.

Microsofts specialty is organizing and marketing already proven technologies. They are anything but an innovative company, unless your talking their marketing strategies. Microsoft has always been afraid of competition. If Microsoft had such great confidence in their own products, then why don't they let them compete on their own merits?

Why? Well, because when Microsoft tried this in the 80s and early 1990s, they found that they couldn't compete. Their products were generally considered subpar by consumers at this time. This was when Microsoft started they predatory business practices which were basically corner the OS market, either buy up or force out of business competing products and do not allow the computer makers of the time to sell competing products with new systems. They accomplished this by threatning not to sell the Windows OS to computer manufacturers. This is right?

For any of us who have been around for the last 20 years or so, we know how Microsoft gained their current position in the industry. Its well known fact and we don't color ourselves to feeling sorry for Microsoft.

Yes, Microsoft has done a lot of good for the computer software industry, but they have done just as much harm by doing everything they can to keep competition to a minimum. And what they have accomplished in this time is to make their product a monopoly. Thereby, basically requiring most of us who depend on our computers to earn a living to have little choice but to buy Microsoft products.

My basic questions to Microsoft has always been this! If your products are so great then why don't you just allow them to compete in the marketplace on their own merits? Why doesn't Microsoft have the confidence in their own products to compete without doing everything possible to stifle the competition?

Well, a lot of people know the real reasons! And the EU had the balls to answer to Microsofts face!

 

[kellycummings]

But they didn't. They just bundled it in with Windows to stifle competition.

Oh, come on now. Do you use Netscape? I used it for a while and it sucked. IE is simply better. Matter of opinion of course but I'm obviously not the only who thinks so. True, MS does bundle stuff in but that doesn't mean people don't have a choice. There are other OS' out there along with other, and better, media players and browsers. If people choose not to use them, that's their own problem.
MS is huge and they take advantage of that. Why should that be a crime?
Someone else said that many won't work for MS because of their business practices and that is probably true but there are many who do work for them and think they're great and wouldn't want to work for anyone else.
I was reading a thing by the desinger of Netscape a few months ago and he pretty much admitted that it's downfall was his fault. He said he saw the future one way and Gates did another way and Gates was right.

 

[The Heretic]

Re: What ppman and Heretic said is really what it is all about!

Well, a lot of people know the real reasons! And the EU had the balls to answer to Microsofts face!

I don't think that MS can't and doesn't come up with some good and innovative stuff - they have - especially in the development tool department. I also don't think that they try to stifle competition because they are afraid.

Having lived in MS territory for almost two decades, I know a lot of people who work there (they are the largest employer in the area except for Boeing) and who have worked there. I've also visited MS a number of times on business and dealt with them on various levels.

I believe the reason they tend to stifle competition is not so much fear (although that has been increasing of late), but rather that they want to dominate the market. I would say that to MS it is like a game taken too far, but it is more than that - it is like a religion, or rather a cult. Ask people who have worked at MS but for whom this was not their first job out of college - most will agree that MS is like a cult, with Bill Gates as its David Koresh (only a lot smarter and more in touch with reality).

I also disagree that Windows isn't so tightly integrated that leaving parts of it out won't cause problems (although not to the degree MS asserts) - that is part of the problem with Windows; MS has tightly integrated most of Windows for various reasons, but mostly because they want to tie people into the OS. It is a common practice in many markets - hell even mops are made to only accept mop inserts from the original manufacturer.

As for copying ideas from competitors - everybody does that, and I have no problem with it. It is how MS does it: sometimes they invite a competitor in, sign an NDA, get the company to share all their implementation details, then feign disinterest, and later implement their own product with the knowledge they gained from the disclosure. Or they hire people away from the companies. Or they reverse engineer. Or any number of other underhanded tricks. The worse thing you can do as a company is make a product that they might become interested in.

Not to mention the other dirty tricks they do, such as the example I gave of trying to run a company into the ground just because it is owned by the wife of someone they don't like.

There are some very smart, innovative and even honest people at MS - and they make some decent to fairly good products, but overall they tend to want to compete in the worst and most underhanded ways they can. That is why they have so many people pissed at them.

Of course, this is nothing new - a lot of companies do the same thing. Maybe not to the same degree, but with the same attitude of dominating the market. The difference is that MS is a lot larger than most everybody else, and so highly profitable that they do indeed engender a lot of jealousy - but it is pretty much their own fault.

Take for example IBM; they used to play some of the same tricks (especially with bundling, undercutting and playing the FUD game) - but they are now well respected in the software development world. Why? Because they have embraced open standards and open source. They are working with their customers and competitors rather than against them. Oh yeah, there is still competition, and maybe even a few shell games, but overall they are not the dog eat dog competitor they once were.

IBM may not dominate like they once did, but they don't have to either - they are profitable, and they are having fun doing what they are doing. For them it is not IBM against the world - unlike MS.

 

[The Heretic]

Someone else said that many won't work for MS because of their business practices and that is probably true but there are many who do work for them and think they're great and wouldn't want to work for anyone else.

I won't disagree with your conclusion about the browsers - I too switched to IE because it was better and NS kept crashing on me. Today NS/Mozilla is much better, but still not as fast as IE.

I will say though that most people who work for MS and like it, do so because they know nothing else. MS has always preferred to hire people right out of college and indoctrinate them in the MS religion. The followers of Jim Jones thought his koolaid was great too.

 

[kellycummings]

I will say though that most people who work for MS and like it, do so because they know nothing else. MS has always preferred to hire people right out of college and indoctrinate them in the MS religion. The followers of Jim Jones thought his koolaid was great too. [/B]

I won't argue with that, it may be true, although the Jim Jones analogy might be a bit extreme.
Still, they are happy and get paid well. Isn't that what most people out of college are looking for?
Maybe they do play dirty pool but that's big business. Show me a successful company that hasn't done that. Well, Pixar, but there is always one.
The oil companies, aviation, automotive, they all do it or have done it. I've just always felt that MS and Gates get picked on because of how big they are.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Oh, come on now. Do you use Netscape? I used it for a while and it sucked. IE is simply better. Matter of opinion of course but I'm obviously not the only who thinks so. True, MS does bundle stuff in but that doesn't mean people don't have a choice. There are other OS' out there along with other, and better, media players and browsers. If people choose not to use them, that's their own problem.
MS is huge and they take advantage of that. Why should that be a crime?
Someone else said that many won't work for MS because of their business practices and that is probably true but there are many who do work for them and think they're great and wouldn't want to work for anyone else.
I was reading a thing by the desinger of Netscape a few months ago and he pretty much admitted that it's downfall was his fault. He said he saw the future one way and Gates did another way and Gates was right.

I used to be exclusively Netscape. But now I'm exclusively Mozilla...Firefox to be exact.

And you've already made the case AGAINST MicroSoft. "MS is huge and they take advantage of that." This is the root of the problem. They use their might to take choices away from consumers. Now, you may be a proponent of monopolies, but in this country, they are illegal. Ma Bell anyone?

Now...if MS suddenly began offering customizable OS's, with options for different media players, different browsers, different mail clients etc... instead of building them into the code of the OS, then things might not seem as monopolizing.