Microsoft : No Breakup

[n715dp]

It is a fine day in the world of the US Justice System. Just 30 minutes ago, it was announced that the breakup order for Microsoft was overturned. Finally someone realized that jealousy is not a reason to penalize a person. Sure, you should be jealous of the richest man in the world, and sure Microsoft probably signed some shady deals, but what company hasn't in their past? Microsoft has done nothing truely wrong, business is like nature, survival of the fittest. "But it isn't fair becuase Microsoft is loaded on all computers!" Bull, if a company came out with something better then computer makers would load that, Why is it Microsoft's fault that no one can come up with anything better? It is a sad day when we penalize someone for being successful. Thank you judicial system, for finally doing something right.


P.S. Rebuttals, please!!! This could turn into a good discussion. I am interested in hearing what others think on this issue.

[This message has been edited by n715dp (edited 06-28-2001).]

[mad1]

Here is a link to the story from Netscape, storyNetscape,http://home.netscape.com/ex/shak/news/stories/0601/microsoft.html

[solo-pc-tech]

Do you actually believe that MS did nothing wrong?

I am disappointed in this ruling, but not surprised in view of George Dubya's administration.

[BFlurie]

Nobody doubts Micro$$ did/does things wrong -- the real question was the judge justified to split them up. Why not simply apply the existing laws for the transgressions -- fines, etc.? The split-em-up decision was obviously the result of vindictiveness, which has no business in law.

[n715dp]

If you read what I typed...

...and sure Microsoft probably signed some shady deals, but what company hasn't in their past? Microsoft has done nothing truely wrong, business is like nature, survival of the fittest.


This says, that Microsoft did nothing more "wrong" then any other company in the world.

Thank you for your input, I look forward to hearing from others.

BTW... the first posting in this discussion is a VERY abbreviated opinion of mine, I will add to it as necessary with postings like this one as people reply.

[n715dp]

... a good point BFlurie...

This leads me to say something that may make some of you left-wingers a little mad...


We live in a world of entitlement and no-wrongdoing. The former administration of the United States (democrat as you know) thought, as all demcrats do, that they were entitled to a piece of the success pie without working for it. Amazing, with a Republican administration, the case is not as firm as it was before http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

Don't hate me because I may just step off the edge of this right-wing I am standing on. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[MiKe85]

I'm sure Microsoft has done some "shady" things, and still do some "shady" things, but for me I kind of like whining about Microsoft, because they are so easy to pick on.

Besides the fact if they were broken up, that would just have them release WORSE products. (Who would have figured something like this could of happened?)

Apply this to a local judge that 'has it in' for you. You go to traffic court and watch as 10 people before you get light sentences for the same offense and BOOM! you get hit with the book. If you can show prejudice you can have a new trial. Judges and juries HAVE to base their decisions on the facts, not their feelings

charmler:
Good thing this isn't allowed to happen in the U.S. (NO doubt this does happen anyway http://www.sysopt.com/forum/frown.gif)

[n715dp]

Another thing to think about as far as breakups and anti-trust cases...

AT&T was broken up into the "baby bells" years ago and today, each of those individual "baby bells" have grown up to become more powerful then AT&T ever was. Kind of a "duh!" move by the Justice Department.

[Fingers]

This ruling AGREES with the lower court ruling that Microsoft does indeed hold a monopoly. This decision is only that Judge Jackson's "remedy" may have been unfair due to his apparent bias against Microsoft.

Here's the CNN story.

Appeals court rules for Microsoft (http://www.cnn.com/cnnfn/2001/06/28/technology/microsoft_appeal/)

[This message has been edited by Fingers (edited 06-28-2001).]

[n715dp]

very true Fingers, but notice the topic "Microsoft : No Breakup" not "Microsoft : No Punishment"

[This message has been edited by n715dp (edited 06-28-2001).]

[n715dp]

Here is a link to an Adobe Acrobat file of the ruling this morning in case anyone really wants to read all 120 pages...
http://a799.ms.akamai.net/3/799/388/60426cc961f13d/www.msnbc.com/modules/legal_docs/062801microsoft.pdf

[daveleau]

I wonder if the killing off of the Netscape browser by AOL has anything to do with this. IE has no big competition now (Mozilla, Opera and otehrs still hold single digit market shares but...) and I could see MS paying AOL to stop developing Netscape so they could have the case overturned due to changing circumstances.....hmmmmmm.
Dave

[doctj]

This case was outdated anyway and the outcome isn't surprising with George Dubya -in the corporation's pocket-Bush regime. The focus should have been on how Microsoft dictates hardware requirements (plug n play for example), steals ideas (eg wma from mp3, attributes from BEos) and then tries to impose their stolen technology on their customers by using their monopoly of the desktop. This is what forces their competitors out of business.
The Xbox is going to be underwritten by sales of desktop licenses otherwise it wouldn't be priced competitively. This should be illegal.That is where the monopoly is, not the outdated browser war

[n715dp]

they didn't "steal" the wma technology... and they didn't "steal" the attributes from Be. I actually use Be as a secondary OS, I love it for some things... those are concepts and practices that are either open source, or readily available for modification. Microsoft is good at seeing something good, and making it better. That is what you do... for example, the Ford Explorer Sport Trac came out last year. Chevrolet just recently released the Avalanche... taking the Sport Trac idea and going a step further... this is exactly what Microsoft does... that is business, that is innovation... taking something that is there now and making it better - i.n.o.v.a.t.i.o.n.

So, back to the example... Ford (mp3, netscape) should sue Chevy (wma, IE) for using their idea and making it better?

Maybe better is not the right word, different maybe the right choice of words... I don't know.


I am not out to prove anyone who posts here wrong, I just like talking about the issues with tech oriented people. Thank you for your reply DOCTJ.

[SysOpt]

For future reference, please submit news discussion topics to us via the submit news form (http://www.sysopt.com/submitnews.html) . You'll get credit for the submission, and the discussion will go into the news discussion section (http://www.sysopt.com/cgi-bin/gws/csys/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=News+Discussion&number=1) .

[Fingers]

doctj,

The judge demonstrated bias against MS, and his "remedy" was vacated... how does that have anything to do with who's in the Whitehouse? Anyway, I believe that the previous President was more beholden to "Corporate interest" than the current one is.


People who hate MS should: 1) stop using anything with an MS label, and 2) stop trying to convince everyone else that MS is pure evil; personal experience proves that Microsoft makes some pretty impressive software.

[doctj]

Innovation is when you come up with a totally new idea. Why didn't windows ever think of a web browser,wma or implementing attributes before other people did. I credit M$ with making the desktop easier for all of us to use but nothing else. I don't hate M$ rihgt now it's the only OS I use, but I don't like them trying to monopolise the whole market out there. They should compete based on the "excellence" of their product not market share.
Please see below Merriam-webster's dictionary definition of innovation.

One entry found for innovation.

Main Entry: in·no·va·tion
Pronunciation: "i-n&-'vA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY
- in·no·va·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective
http://navigation.helper.realnames.com/framer/1/262/default.asp?realname=Websters+Dictionary&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Em%2Dw%2Ecom%2Fdictionary%2E htm&frameid=1&providerid=262&ui d=3001 (http://navigation.helper.realnames.com/framer/1/262/default.asp?realname=Websters+Dictionary&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Em%2Dw%2Ecom%2Fdictionary%2E htm&frameid=1&providerid=262&uid =3001) 5999

[This message has been edited by doctj (edited 06-28-2001).]

[This message has been edited by doctj (edited 06-28-2001).]

[n715dp]

doctj,

I stand corrected... innovation was not the word I should have used there, however, I think you can see my point with the analogy of Ford and Chevy. Thank you.

[doctj]

n175dp
M$ should use the BASF line: "we use other peoples technology and make it "better".
Regards

[This message has been edited by doctj (edited 06-28-2001).]

[This message has been edited by doctj (edited 06-28-2001).]

[n715dp]

I think what you were looking for is:

"We don't make a lot of the things you buy, we make a lot of the things you buy better."


Good one though http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[BBA]

A breakup is not good for any company. It was not good for cunsumers in the past, with the phone companies we have now with much artificially inflated rates a direct result.

I don't even think that the monopoly issue is really answered yet..only the initial count clinton drove claimed that MS was a monopoly. ( And that was only because MS was a huge company that never contributed to slick willy until after court precedings started )


I'm still stuck on the fundamental question of why was anyone comparing Netscape to MS in the first place? Netscape made but only one product...a browser, that was competitive for but a limited time. Microsoft made everything else...the OS that Netscape was able to run on in the first place...you should be happy MS made it possible that netscape had a platform to use!

Ok...Ok...was MS a monopoly because Netscape failed to make it's own OS? That might be the only valid point anyone can make regarding Netscape's failure.

[CMonster]

I say blame "King George" - if those Brits hadn't come to this country in the first place...

MicroKraft nine-danka!

This will be better for Linux - an applications division of MS that also ported to apps to Linux might have spelled the end of most opensource application devolopement.

[Jim9999]

One other point. It is NOT illegal to be a monoploy. The questions being asked have to do with the actions (proper or improper) of a company declared a monopoly. The idea is that what may be proper for an underdog company may not be proper for a monopoly. But being a monopoly is not the problem.

As for the judicial arm being independent of the executive arm... after the last administration, I think there can be no doubt that they are in touch with each other. Why else would Reno "rush to justice" (her words) in the Microsoft case, yet feel that a "rush to justice" (her words in a separate issue regarding our wrongful imprisonment of a Chinese scientist) would be a mistake, as all the facts will not have a chance to be examined.

[risc]

Personaly, I am relieved that the apeals court reversed the descision. I'm not saying that microsoft did nothing wrong, nor am i saying that they shouldnt be punished for what they did wrong. but i firmly believe that because microsoft holds the 90 some percent of the desktop market, that if they were split up and their operations disrupted, and if they went into a bit of financial trouble, all computer users would feel the effect. im a believer in open source software. almost all of the software i use is freely available. how do you think those programmers make their money? write software for windose!

[Mortis]

Greetings. Dont forget that Microsoft/Bill Gates just made a substantial donation to the United Nations... who spearheads the UN (US)? A little coincidental to me. Aside from that, Microsoft does fit the legal criteria for being a monopoly. I am eager to see what new ramifications are imposed.

Mortis

[YMK]

What do you mean Microsoft has done some shady things? The only reason they were attacked was because Netscape threw a fit over MS including IE with windows. Why would you pay for slow, buggy netscape when you can get a great browser (IE) for free? Remember when Janet Reno told us it was a great day for consumers because Microsoft was going to be split up? If you remember it was a horrible day for investors. Investors lost faith in MS and stocks plunged. Let MS go. Why mess with success? Do you think Bill Gates just has all his money in a vault and swims in it? No. A huge amount of Microsoft's profits go into making better products for us, the consumers. What country do we live in where a corporation can be torn in two for including a web browser with an operating system? Of course the sensitive, compassionate leftists cant let netscape die, they have to jump in and limit the growth of a great company to let the little guys catch up. If netscape is so great, then people will buy it. If no one likes netscape, tough. I think people need to step back and think about what government is really supposed to do. Government should play by the book, not based on their feelings of pity or whatever else. Microsoft is NOT a monopoly for the following reasons: 1.) You don't NEED windows 2.)Microsoft is not the only operating system or browser. 3.)Microsoft is not charging an unreasonable amount of money for either IE or Windows. True monopolies are groups of companies that agree on a super high price for a necessity and block out all other competition. If I were microsoft I would move to canada. If the leftists were smart at all they would appreciate the huge amount of tax revenue they get from MS and leave them alone. They don't realize that Microsoft can just pack up and go. Well we have a great president now who plays by the book, Microsoft will stay as it is and stocks are surging.

[doctj]

If M$ is not charging an unreasonable price for software, why are they using the profits from those sales to underwrite the introduction of the Xbox?
M$ is a monopoly and the judges ruled that. What they haven't agreed on is the mode of punishment.
And also 90% of the Federal Govt's tax revenue comes from the ordinary joes like me and you. Corporate tax receipts are only 10%.

[This message has been edited by doctj (edited 06-28-2001).]

[TCWolffe]

Check your facts about Netscape, their browser was NOT their only product, they made an email client, web editing, video conferencing software, and a slew of other products targeted at corporate consumers. The browser was their most identifiable product, yes. I could go one way or the other about browser wars, nobody will have the answers to all the why's surrounding that. But as the appeals court stated, Microsoft was guilty of using unlawful tactics to preserve it's OS dominance. Their recent recent actions boggle me to say the least (forced licensing for XP, a bane to tweakers everywhere, strongarming corporate clients into auditing their machines at their own expense backed by the threat of legal action, when the larger scope of piracy lies in people burning copies at home, etc.)

anyways, just 2 cents....

[doctj]

Fingers,
Do you really think that the judicial arm is totally independent of the executive arm? Dream on.

[daveleau]

To say that President Bush is to blame for this is ludicrous. There are so many things, including the loss of the plaintiff, to warrant an overturn. Mr. Bush is too busy trying to clean up the mess from the mess from the previous tenants of the White House, which includes saving our economy that began to decline months BEFORE Mr. Bush got into his elected position.

Dave

[n715dp]

Let's go back to pre-AOL owning Netscape...

Why wasn't anyone complaining that Microsoft included a copy of AOL with Windows? Why wasn't anyone complaining about Disk Defrag (Intel made that), why wasn't anyone complaining about Compuserve being bundled (again, pre-AOL buying them too). Hmm, that brings up another point... AOL owns Time Warner, Netscape, Nullsoft (WinAmp) and a slew of others... I guess we should tell Chevorlet to stop putting AC Delco Air Filters in their cars because the is a two products being bundled together that one company owns.


DOCTJ,

Ford doesn't use profits from the Explorer to sell the Taurus...? Chevy doesn't use profits from the Suburban to sell a Malibu...? that is what you do in business, you take your profits (from anything you sell) and you promote and develop new products and you sell those and make more products.

I only use the car industry examples because they are easy to understand.

[This message has been edited by n715dp (edited 06-29-2001).]

[doctj]

n715dp
As a business model using one product to underwrite another will only work:
1. If the product is way overpriced as windows software is.
2. You have a monopoly on the market which ensures a constant revenue stream.
Funnily enough I walked into a computer shop yseterday and saw an OEM version of WinME for $120. The rep told me that M$ have changed their policy and that even if I bought a screw that day it would qualify for an oem purchase. Before you had to purchase a hard drive, cpu etc to qualify. Even M$ have realised that their software is overpriced.

[This message has been edited by doctj (edited 06-30-2001).]

[n715dp]

Doc, an interesting opinion (notice I say opinion because that is all any of us are really capable of spilling forth here http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif)

You may be getting sick of the car thing but it works so well... a car maker knows their car is overpriced so they offer "cash back incetives" or something like that. I think this shows that it is not only Microsoft who charges high prices.

One of the few things that I remember from my economics classes is that when you have a product, you charge for that product based on a couple of things:
1) the cost of goods sold (how much the item cost to make.
2) the amount of profit you wish to make per item
3) whatever the market will bear...


It is number three that I will rant about now... so you saw WinMe for $120 (personally I wouldn't touch WinMe with a ten foot stick, I hate it). There is no law on what can be charged for a product, with the exception of "staples," things like electricity, milk, bread (I think) and things that people need to live. Microsoft can charge whatever they like, it is up to the consumer to decide whether to buy or not. So you saw WinMe for $120, you have a choice to buy it or not, you see a car for $25995, you have choice to buy or not. Microsoft charges $120 because that is what the market will bear, that is what people will pay for their product. If people did not buy it, they would lower the price. In the computer industry we see this a lot. Look at video cards for example, the GeForce3 came out at $500 to $600 if you could even find a store that had one in stock, today they are around $300 to $400. This is because as a product ages, the demand becomes less, becuase there is something new or the market is saturated, and in order to stimulate sales the company lowers the price. I am not trying to say that it is right or wrong to hold a monopoly, personally, I don't really believe that a monopoly exists anywhere... you have the choice as a consumer to buy whatever you want. If you don't want to pay for Microsoft stuff, then don't buy it. Why should Microsoft be penailized for having a superior product and then making money off of it. If someone came out with a better product then there would be a price war. Now you say that no one can afford to come up with a better product? Why is that Microsoft's fault? They aren't running the other companies. They practice business strategy and good marketing. Microsoft had an idea, took a gamble and won, why is that wrong?


As always, everyone's comments are appreciated, thanks for the feedback, and of course, more feedback is welcome, take care all http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[doctj]

We're going round in circles. No business can remain viable by underwritng a loss making item indefinitely. For eg Intel's cash reserves have dwindled dramatically since starting a price war with AMD.
M$ is a monopoly because they did something right initially. The way in which they want to maintain that monopoly without innovation is what I question.

[TCWolffe]

>>I am not trying to say that it is right or wrong to hold a monopoly, personally, I don't really believe that a monopoly exists anywhere... you have the choice as a consumer to buy whatever you want. If you don't want to pay for Microsoft stuff, then don't buy it. Why should Microsoft be penailized for having a superior product and then making money off of it. If someone came out with a better product then there would be a price war. Now you say that no one can afford to come up with a better product? Why is that Microsoft's fault? They aren't running the other companies. They practice business strategy and good marketing. Microsoft had an idea, took a gamble and won, why is that wrong?<<

First off, there are better products, we can argue day and night about whether they are or not, and people can exaggerate claims about how it takes weeks to get a Unix system running and exaggerate how you compile for days at a time, and whine about not wanting to use command prompts and what not. lets go to your car scenario....you have to change the oil, give it tune ups, keep it clean, and generally take care of it....the faster, more powerful cars always took more time to keep running, the basic cars just needed routine maintenance. so MS works for most people, great.....I'm not satisfied with what can be settled for, and neither can most enthusiasts.....that's kinda what defines us if you think about it

a definition of 'better' for me, may not be for you, so words like that have no place. One may be more 'user-friendly' to one person because it takes care of itself with no need for monitoring/maintenance, while I prefer to constantly keep things moving a bit more stable here, a little faster there....things were not able to do with windows....

The problem is, if ANY other OS becomes popular enough, a 'user-friendly' version will come out, and threaten MS....so MS bashes open-source, and in so doing insults a large community of people.

hey, thinking of your car scenario again, when was the last to you heard Dodge or Chevy representatives bashing Kia or Daewoo models at a press conference? If they have, did they manage to insult anyone who drives those models, or more importantly, the poeple who design and built them? They don't, they let their products sell on their OWN merits...

anyways...

there are other products, and as stated before, microsoft had told oem's that they would either sell all Microsoft Windows machines, or they would not get ANY licenses....where does the choice lie? sure you can, as a decision-maker, say no, just where does that leave your company, having the only machines w/o Windows. Microsoft made it so that the ONLY way to succeed was their way or not at all.

Their dominance now so big as to not allow any other OS more than single-digit market shares, that they can dictate to the oem's what to sell and what not to sell (kinda reciprocal, see?)

They then began dictating to software makers how to write their code to be compatible with windows only, or they would not be allowed to gain access to the windows source code to write their programs at all....again, MS way or no way.

look at Java, they were licensed java, agreed to not change the java code. (java sold on interoperability, which would level the playing field, not good for MS) what did they do? changed the license to only work with MS, a breach of contract, illegal. I still don't understand to this day how they were allowed to ship an illegal product which destroyed the entire point of the code they were licensed.

and as far as, "every business practices some dirty tricks" or some statement similar to that, does that make it right? just because everyone else does it? what kind of junior-high, follow the leader, peer pressure justification mentality is that?

everyone else on this street is going 15 miles over the limit, officer.....

face it, MS got busted, they need to just live up to it, and play nice.

[This message has been edited by TCWolffe (edited 06-30-2001).]

[n715dp]

Keep the replies coming, I like to hear what people have to say, however, I am tired of typing for now, there are many things I would like to comment on about the last two people's statements, both good and bad, but I will leave it at this for now:

>>>>and as far as, "every business practices some dirty tricks" or some statement similar to that, does that make it right? just because everyone else does it? what kind of junior-high, follow the leader, peer pressure justification mentality is that?

everyone else on this street is going 15 miles over the limit, officer.....

face it, MS got busted, they need to just live up to it, and play nice<<<<


My point in making the statement that 'everyone is doing it' was that MS has been singled out because they have press appeal... if you are going to punish one company for breach of contract or some other offense then you need to punish ALL companies. I don't see Intel on the chopping block of monopolizing the processor market.


Anyway, much appreciated folks, I enjoy hearing what you have to say on a matter that affects us all... thank you for keeping it civil also... one of the nice things about this country is that we are all entitled to our own opinion, and in a circumstance such as this, we are able to voice that opinion and hear what others have to say.

Anyone else care to comment http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif we have had this on the Hot Threads list for a couple of days now and I would love to see it stay up there a little while longer http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[cedar2]

Hello n715dp, thought I`d throw in my two cents. Some responses:

-...and sure Microsoft probably signed some shady deals, but what company hasn't in their past? Microsoft has done nothing truely wrong, business is like nature, survival of the fittest.

Does that mean people have the right to use MS`s software without paying if they can figure out a way to do it? Survival of the fittest and all that.

-AT&T was broken up into the "baby bells" years ago and today, each of those individual "baby bells" have grown up to become more powerful then AT&T ever was. Kind of a "duh!" move by the Justice Department

Did you stop to think of what the market would be like if AT&T wasn`t broken up; all that power concentrated in the hands of a SINGLE company?

-Chevrolet just recently released the Avalanche... taking the Sport Trac idea and going a step further... this is exactly what Microsoft does...

GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Mazda, etc....vs. Microsoft and who else? All the car companies innovate to increase market share because they are competing. Nobody has enough market power to dictate the path. Not quite the same scenario in MS`s field.

-We don't make a lot of the things you buy, we make a lot of the things you buy better

Should actually be .. We have dominated the market so thouroghly that we make the only thing you can buy. It`s better than the one we made last year and charged you for and better than the one we made the year before and charged you for, and the year before that and so on. But it`s not good enough that we don`t have to make another one next year to charge you for, and probably the year after and so on.

-You may be getting sick of the car thing but it works so well... a car maker knows their car is overpriced so they offer "cash back incetives" or something like that.

Again, cars are different. Each one requires the manufacturing and assembling of thousands of parts; both time and materials as well as the initial design and development costs. Prices on cars are controlled by the requirement to be competitive in the market because someone will underprice you if you start charging too much. Software, on the other hand, requires the design and development phase, but after that, each unit requires only a small CD duplication charge. Car makers offer rebates to keep there product moving, if they can`t sell they are faced with inventory carrying charges and perhaps a lot of parts that can`t be used because they are outdated. Not a problem software makers face.

-Microsoft can charge whatever they like...

That is true. To use your example, if you don`t like the price of one car, there are many alternatives at a variety of prices. Not quite the same with MS.

-I don't really believe that a monopoly exists anywhere... you have the choice as a consumer to buy whatever you want.

No offense, but just because you don`t believe monopolies exist doesn`t mean they don`t. Choice is only possible when there are alternatives. In a monopoly, there aren`t, and I think that effectively describes MS`s situation.

-If you don't want to pay for Microsoft stuff, then don't buy it. Why should Microsoft be penailized for having a superior product and then making money off of it. If someone came out with a better product then there would be a price war. Now you say that no one can afford to come up with a better product? Why is that Microsoft's fault?

That is a valid statement when the market isn`t monopolized, and would have worked in the days of win 3.1 before MS raised the barriers to entry into the business so high. If someone came out with a better idea now, MS would swallow them whole, maybe or maybe not incorporating the idea into MS products.

I am curious why you think it would hurt MS to be broken up? Using your own example of AT&T and the success of the Baby Bells, don`t you think MS would continue to succeed. Is there some need for the company to stay so large?