This has already been discussed in several threads. MS is not accused of being a monopoly. They are accused of certain anticompetitive business practices and I have no doubt they are indeed guilty of that and should probably be fined but a breakup seems way excessive. I am talking strictly of business practices like using their power to bully computer manufacturers into doing what they were told. OTOH I believe the government should not get into telling MS how to develop their products. If they want to integrate the browser or whatever else, that is their business. But if they tell Compaq “you do as I tell you , or else…” that should not be allowed. I believe they are guilty of that. But I also think they have the best products around (the least bad I should say) for my needs.
Patenting an invention creates a temporary monopoly over its use. No one is allowed to use your patent without your permission. This allows you to be the sole provider of your invention for as long as the patent lasts, during which time you are free to price-gouge and sue any “competitors” who try to sell copies of your invention into oblivion. Patents are, by their very nature, an anti-competitive tactic. But they are an anti-competitive tactic that is explicitly allowed by the law, and is exempt from the standard omnibus of so-called antitrust legislation.
Apple only recently started charging for their OS. Originally it was free, and in fact, you can still get OS 7.somethingorother for free. Comparing Microsoft to Macintosh is making at least two errors (comparing a software company to a hardware product)
Try to name one. I’ve seen some pretty sharp cookies come up empty handed on this challenge. It certainly appears that Microsoft has acquired every single new technology that they are responsible for delivering. They’re not a technology company, they’re just a remarketer…
MamaGeph:
No. If IE wasn’t an adequate product, it might have gone down in flames…
Ahh… but what made it a pain? It’s entirely possible that the problems you had with Netscape were directly related to Microsoft ‘sabotage’.
I hadn’t heard that one. If that is the case, I think that would be an unfair penalty. Microsoft should be allowed to protect their IP.
tracer:
Slight nitpick, but operating systems are copyrighted, not patented. Copyrights last much longer than patents. A copyright for a joint work, such as an OS, is valid for 70 years following the death of the last surviving author…
Just wanted to make a few nitpicks, otherwise JoeyBlades is right on track.
Last time this was discussed on the board, I think we settles on the fact that Bob and that smug paperclip are both MS derived innovations. I think there was some argument about both, but MS was the first to deliver them to a wide audience. Damming with faint praise? maybe.
They are working to build up a first class research department, and already they’ve had some interesting work come out of there.
And according to Neal Stephenson, the whole concept of getting people to go to a store and buy an operating system was pretty innovative.
I remember this being discussed in the media, but I don’t think this was ever a serious proposal. I’m borderline about the current order to split MS, but having them give away their code would be going WAY too far.
I do understand the reasoning about splitting the company though. So far, the conduct remedies that have previously applied to MS were pretty much ignored. I also think that the court was pissed about MSs arrogance, which isn’t the best way to make a decision, and is why I’m mixed about the ruling.
Less expensive software? Excuse me? I can’t think of a major app that MS has that is under $200. The full (non-upgrade) version of Word cost over $350! For the average person who uses a word-processing program to type a letter, this is ridiculous. I have a Mac; I use Nisus Writer and AppleWorks. Both cost me less than $100 each. You can’t tell me there aren’t more WP options on the Windows end.
There are people who “want” MS products for the sole reason that they are MS products. Every product MS releases gets attention for the same reason, even if that product is lacking or a non-innovation. Some people (I don’t want to say all) buy MS products because MS is a company whose name they recognize and thus assume makes quality products. Quite the contrary- Microsoft Outlook, the popular e-mail program, for example, is widely used, yet is a HUGE security compromise. And the worst part is it’s FREE. If Outlook belonged to any other company, it would have been left to die in the gutter a long time ago.
I disagree also that MS should be forced to release their code, but I heard an interesting rumor a couple years ago that many, many lines of code were found in MS’s MediaPlayer (not sure about the name, but it was their QuickTime-comparable product) that were, line by line, the same as that found in QT. Said rumor claimed that this was one of the reasons for MS’s $150M “investment” in Apple in 1997.
This is not self-contradictory for two reasons. First, the Netscape/Java platform does not and cannot compete as an operating system. It quite simply lacks the low-level resource management capabilities that are the hallmarks of an operating system. The reason Microsoft tried to stop them is because they provided a platform that third parties could use to implement software without having any dependence on the underlying operating system. Had this been successful, it could have commoditized the underlying operating system, thereby eliminating Microsoft’s monopoly advantage.
Second, bundling is only illegal when used by a monopolist for anti-competitive means. There is nothing wrong with the Netscape/Java combination because Netscape does not have a monopoly in browsers, and it is not anti-competitive.
I think you’re severely minimizing the impact of the applications barrier to entry, cmkeller. Even if you could implement your own applications for your operating system as Microsoft has, you wouldn’t still wouldn’t be able to compete unless you supported the incredibly vast quantity of third party software that exists for Windows. There are essentially two ways to do that: (a) support the Windows APIs or (b) convince third parties to port their software. The is a project called Wine that has been trying to do (a) for seven years now and is still not even close to supporting the Windows APIs, some of which are hidden or undocumented. As a Linux user, I can say that (b) is also incredibly difficult. For example, many people have been trying for years to convince Quicken (a company that certainly has no love lost for Microsoft) to port their software to Linux, with no success. And that is just one piece of software among the tens or hundreds of thousands out there.
This is one topic that the media did an incredibly poor job of reporting, no thanks to Microsoft’s PR department. There is no provision in the final order requiring Microsoft to give away their code. Here is the actual passage from the order, section 3.b:
Microsoft must simply create a secure facility where hardware and software vendors as well as computer manufacturers can make sure their products work effectively with Windows. They are not required by the order to divulge their code outside of this facility. This provision is necessary because Microsoft has repeatedly used hidden APIs to give unfair advantage to their own software developers, and this is the only real way to keep them honest, IMHO.
[Re: splitting up Microsoft]
I’m a bit puzzled by the people who take the stand that Microsoft has broken the law, yet they should not be broken up. From what I’ve read, there are two possibilities for preventing anticompetitive behavior in the future: either conduct or structural remedies. Keep in mind that
[ul]
[li]Microsoft not only broke the law flagrantly and repeatedly, but to this day refuses to admit that they did anything wrong.[/li][li]Microsoft violated the principles of their earlier consent decree with the US DOJ.[/li][li]It is impossible for any conduct remedy to forsee and forbid every possible anticompetitive practice.[/li][/ul]
Given these facts, I have no confidence that Microsoft would not successfully evade any conduct remedies placed on it. Additionally, any changes to prevent this evasion would have to be mediated by the courts. This would involve a long and tedious process that would likely not reach a conclusion before the anticompetitive act had had its desired effect. Contrast this to the structural remedy, where market forces would act to prevent anticompetitive acts, with very little government intervention. There is no question in my mind that a structural remedy is the most effective way to prevent future monopolistic abuse.
Even slighter nitpick :), but I thought the name of the product received the copyright, not the content of the product itself. Like, when the patent for Windows 95 (assuming there is one, this is just an example) runs out, anyone will be able to use the code, but they won’t be able to call the product “Windows 95”.
To wit:
Copyright- the name that consumers associate with the product.
Patent- the “meat” of the product.
Anyway… fun thread. Much back-and-forthness. Maybe I’ll even participate a bit later on (although I’ve learned from other Microsoft threads… :D).
I believe the same applies to fragrances and typefaces (so I’m a type/font freak, sue me): the names of the products are what is copyrighted but the “meat”, as SPOOFE calls it, is not. This explains why we can have cheap imitation fragrances (although I dunno how close they really are; I’ve never done side by side comparisons) and freeware fonts that closely resemble $100 ones.
microsoft forced pc makers to buy a windows license for every comuter they sold, regardless of whether they loaded or wanted to load windows on each machine. now how much time or money do you think the manufacturers would put into trying alternative o/ses if they’d already paid for an o/s for every pc they made??
If they wanted to get out from under MS that badly, they’d develop it. Granted, MS mey have been a bit agressive, but that’s business. It’s their product.
I think that not being able to copyright a typeface is something unique. I can’t really understand the justifications for it either, except that since differences in typefaces are often very subtle, its hard to show when one has been stolen.
As for software:
The title of the software can be trademarked. This is for protecting brand identity. I’m not allowed to make an operating system called Windows 99, because it confuses the marketplace.
The content of the software (the actual binary files, help documents, copy on the box, etc) can and are all copyrighted.
The source code is also copyrighted.
The “look and feel” can not be. I can make an OS that looks just like Windows, and should be pretty safe. Note that there is a bunch of disagreement about this. Apple lost their look and feel suit with MS, but I think they settled with e-Machines (for making an iMac knockoff).
Reverse engineering is permissible, under certain circumstances. You have to be real careful how much access the engineers have had to the original product.
The ideas behind the algorithms can be patented. This not only protects the actual text that the algorithms were written in, but the concepts behind it. So translations and reverse engineering are not permissable. This can only be done if the invention is sufficently novel, and there are no prior examples of the invention.
Oh, and about MS forcing OEMs to buy a windows license: A few OEMs installed 2 operating systems on their machines. They weren’t allowed to change the boot sequence, but they could, I believe, ship with instructions for how to get to the other OS, or a boot floppy that would get you there. And when you first booted into windows, but you could choose not to agree to the license agreement that you saw when Windows started for the first time, and ask for a refund from MS.
So MS made it a royal pain to put in other operating systems, but there are a few OEMs trying it out.
And I think that the big thing that OEMs don’t want to deal with is support for those other OSs. Its enough of a pain for them to support Windows (this always seemed weird to me, MS makes the OEMs support windows).
If they wanted to get out from under MS that badly, they’d develop it. Granted, MS mey have been a bit agressive, but that’s business. It’s their product.
actually that is one of the reasons they are being split up. it is one example of how they abused a monopoly position, which is illegal. you seem to believe it shouldn’t be illegal, but there it is.
The judge’s ruling that IE and Windows bundling is illegal conflicts directly with a higher court decision, the same federal court that is listening to the appeal of the case. I am certain that they hate being ignored by lower courts and may throw out the judgment out of spite, reasoned spite.
First, there was nothing innovative about it. Integrated work packages had been around for a long time before ‘Bob’ (Including MS WOrks) and the “themed user interface” had been used in a number of programs, primarily for kids… (check out Broderbund’s ‘The Playroom’, a sort of GUI for kids - ‘Bob’ looks frighteningly similar)… Second, I don’t think it qualifies as innovation if it flops! Actually, I take it back. Microsoft did one innovative thing with ‘Bob’, they raised the bar for insulting the intelligence of their customers…
Both ‘Bob’ and the ubiquitous ‘clip’ are direct outcomes of research from Professor Byron Reeves and Associate Professor Clifford Nass, of Stanford’s Communications Department. Therefore, once again, Microsoft isn’t responsible for the innovation - just the marketing.
SPOOFE wrote:
Nope. Don’t believe me? Try this little experiment. Take a book like “2001: A Space Odyssey”. Now retype it word-for-word and give it a new title; something like “When Good Computers Go Bad”. Do you think you can sell it???
Copyright infringement refers to the entire work, including content.
No, excuse me. I guess I was not following the market prices closely enough. You compare MS Word to AppleWorks? How about MS Works? You get the whole office suite (usually for free with a PC)? Why not compare apples to apples?
Also, the OS prices are extremely low compared to competition. IE is free like Netscape Nav. Anything else? Oh, by the way, they also enabled less expensive HW to be used by comsumers.
I’m not sure if you are arguing with me or making my point for me. They want MS products for a reason. No one forced anyone to buy MS in 1984, or '87, or '92. This is a company that started out fighting for a small piece of the market, and managed to get the lions share. More power to them.
(Buy the way, I own ‘technically superior’ software to MS in OS, Office, and other, but use mostly MS. Huh. So many people around me do the same.
I’m on Bill Gates’ side 100%. The whole anti-trust thing came about as the result of Microsoft’s [jealous] competitors complaining to the government–in other words, a bunch of little companies figured they weren’t growing fast enough in the market, so they took their battle to the courtroom.
And Microsoft DID NOT get a fair trial. The judge was completely biased against the company. He didn’t even begin to understand half of the technological aspects influencing the market. And he was actually asleep during many parts of the testimony!
Don’t even get me started on the innovation part. Microsoft is one of the most innovative companies out there, especially in terms of the amount of money being put into R&D.
Their products aren’t that bad. If you’re having THAT much trouble with them, you might consider taking “Introduction to Computing Environments” or a similar course at your local community college. On that subject, their products are expensive for a reason. For example, with the Office Package Small Business Edition you are actually getting 6 programs designed to work together to enhance both your computing experience and the quality of your work.
Hey, if you don’t like Microsoft’s products, you don’t have to use them–you have other choices. Or perhaps you have been so busy complaining that you haven’t noticed.
You’ve not been listening. The complaints don’t arise due to Microsoft’s dominance in the OS market. The complaints arise because Microsoft used it’s dominance in that market to prevent the market leaders from competing with their new browser. They knew they couldn’t win in a head-to-head.
Gimme a break this stuff ain’t rocket science. I’m sure the judge understood plenty well enough. If he didn’t, then it’s Microsoft’s own fault for hiring incompetent lawyers. Technically, the nature of the technology and/or market is irrelevant to the issue at hand. We could just as easily be talking about widgets.
Since when is burning money an indicator of innovation?
Hey, I’m a computer engineer. I know, quite well, what goes into developing products like “Office”. While I agree that “Office” has a lot of nice integrated features, I cannot say that Microsoft has demonstrated software excellence in the development of this package. It’s much too fat and slow. It reflects exactly the process that Microsoft has used in it’s development… if you develop with a bolt-on mentality, you end up with a bulky product with a lot of loose screws. If you look at StarOffice in the unix/linux world you can see how a product of comparable performance and complexity can be built much more efficiently… Hey, and StarOffice is free!!! I guess that shoots your ‘you-get-what-you-pay-for’ theory in the foot, as well.
You know, this brings up a point that’s always bugged me about Windows. I keep hearing how much more software there is available for Windows than Mac, but where are the non-integrated, non-Microsoft word processors, spreadsheets, and presentation packages? If you go to tucows there’s virtually none to be found. I never hear about any third party commercial competitors either. Go to the Mac section of tucows, though and you’ll find lots of competitive products and there’s a bunch of commercial competitors, too…
But returning to your point, I do use non-Microsoft products quite frequently - not because I have some sort of anti-Microsoft bent. I just prefer Netscape Communicator to Internet Explorer, and I prefer Communicator to Outlook Express, and I prefer Communicator to FrontPage. I prefer Deneba Canvas to PowerPoint and I prefer Canvas to Publisher, Picture It!, and PhotoDraw… When it comes to spreadsheets, I like Excel and Word is a really good word processor. I suspect that they dominate simply because they are the best (if not the only), though if I were paying for them out of my own pocket, I’d be looking for something a little less feature rich and more economical.