Not to be busting balls, but this sounds like sarcasm or am I mistaken?
You decide whether I was lying, as Tejota has accused me of, or simply mistaken by the multitude to references to what I was claiming until I read the critical line in the findings of fact, and then decide on my level of sarcasm.
Well, since you’re being so ambiguous, I would say that my initial impression is correct that you are being really sarcastic. But, hey, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so I’ll just ask you flat out for the record: were you incorrect in asserting many times in this and other threads that Microsoft threatened Compaq to “bundle Windows on every single computer you sell, or we’ll double your licensing fees?”
Yes, I was incorrect. I was repeating what I’d read in many reputable sources, but subsequent investigation showed that what really happened was that Microsoft threatened to cancel Compaq’s Windows licence if they removed the IE icon from the desktop, an action in violation of Compaq’s OEM pre-install kit license, and a point on which Microsoft was firm with all its OEMs.
Since Apple makes Macintosh computers, they have a right to include their own OS with them. Ditto for Sun, Palm, etc.
What makes it different in Microsoft’s case is that Microsoft doesn’t make their own computers – Dell, Compaq, HP, Sony, and IBM do. Yet, by using a combination of monopoly power and strongarm tactics, Microsoft was able to force these companies to choose Microsoft’s products, at the exclusion of their competitors’.
That is why Microsoft got their chops busted (and deservedly too, I might add).
Holy shit, man, they’d really be in hot water if they’d done that! :eek: Don’t you know an operating system isn’t meant to do anything useful? If it did then they’d be monopolizing the market. 
rjung:
I’ll ask again. Were the contract that these companies signed into with Microsoft not allowing any of them to sell computers with other operating systems at all?
Also, rjung, whether you think they had a right to or not doesn’t matter: they’re a monopoly, and they should open up their source code, work hard to provide means for competitors to take over their business, and seek out companies to manufacture stuff against them. (yes, hyperbole, used to get an underlying message across)
Not that bluntly worded, but some of the contracts Microsoft used (which often differed by OEMs) effectly imposed such limits. For instance, one computer maker who wanted to sell PCs that dual-booted either into Windows or OS/2 found the following clauses in his Microsoft contracts:
(1) Only a Microsoft-approved dual-boot program can be used to boot into Windows.
(2) Microsoft-approved dual-boot programs can only be used to boot into Microsoft operating systems.
Oh, yeah, no barriers to competition there. :rolleyes:
As others have said already, there’s nothing wrong with Microsoft having a monopoly and maintaining it if it’s by fair and legal means; it’s when they start abusing their market share to prevent or supress competition that they must be stopped.
Anyone who believes Microsoft is being punished simply for being “too successful” is either hopelessly naive or a Microsoft employee.
Your entitled to hold this opinion. But the facts don’t support you. PC manufacturers ship Windows because their customers insist on it.
When a non-trivial number of customers began asking for Linux instead, some PC manufacturers began shipping that instead. MS can’t FORCE anyone to buy Windows. People buy it because the alternatives are all less useful.
No, the actual situation is:
- same as above
- Microsoft-supplied dual-boot programs will only boot MS operating systems.
Where’s the evidence that MS refused to approve 3rd party dual boot programs, or for that matter that anyone ever asked them to?
OS/2 dual boot did a fine job, was it ever submitted to MS for approval? Knowing how bad the IBM - MS relationship was, I have a guess as to that answer.
Out of curiosity, did your PC manufacturer ask for approval or wavier and have it refused? Or is this another case of someone reading the OEM agreement and charging MS with a theoretical anti-competetive situation that never actually happened?
You’re confusing the issue. Microsoft has an OS monopoly, but their violations centered on using that monopoly to strike exclusionary contracts with OEMs to create monopolies in other markets. Compaq wanted to remove the IE icon from the desktop, and Microsoft threatened to cancel their Windows license–they used their desktop monopoly to ensure prime placement for their product for the browser market (which, in 1995 at least, was still a separate market).
I see. so if MS had a lock on the entire PC market, software AND hardware, it would be ok then. Yeah, I see the logic in that. :rolleyes:
Perhaps you missed section two that I typed up above: “Every person who shall… attempt to monopolize… any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony…”
Care to repeat your assertation and explain that away?
Well, I’m glad you are prepared to let your arguments speak for themselves. Can you please explain to me how “monopoly” is distinguished from “too successful”; that is, how can one be more successful than by being a monopoly? Can you please explain to me how, when the DOJ was attempting to get a conviction on section 2, they weren’t punishing them for being a monopoly, regardless of MS’s tactics?
Being a “bad monopoly” is section 1; section 2 is just for being a monopoly period (or the very concise “attempting” to be a monopoly). The DOJ went after them on both section 1 and section 2. Anyone who fails to recognize that… well, I would appreciate them helping me understand their view. You are welcome to be whatever kind of person you want to have it, I just want to know.
And again, you’re confusing the issue. It’s not Microsoft’s desktop monopoly that’s illegal, it’s their abuse of it.
The two are intertwined. Nothing that MS did was illegal for a non-monopoly to do. I showed that if MS is a monopoly, then so is Apple, Palm, and Sun.
The contracts that the DOJ calls abusive are standard practice, so how come Sun & Apple can abuse their supposed monopoly but MS can’t?
When has Sun or Apple or Palm leveraged their respective monopolies into other markets?
Relevence? When has Microsoft?
See the findings of law upheld by the Appeals Court.
The Conclusions of Law, and Findings of Fact are two different documents. (thought the FoF is suprisingly fact-free) Which one do you think proves this?
MS never leveraged their monopoly into any other markets, If you believe otherwise then you should be able to say what market.
The relevant detail you’re looking for to explain section two is a two prong test articulated in the case United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966)
In other words, you have to be a monopoly, and you have to try to maintain that monopoly (or acquire it in the first place) through anti-competitive acts, as distinguished from usual business practices.
If you think that distinction doesn’t exist, remember that, in the 80s, IBM escaped prosecution under section two because (acting on David Boies’ advice), they admitted they were a monopoly, but proved that they weren’t intentionally trying to maintain it.
Yep. And then when it is “business as usual” you get tried for it too; isn’t that the whole point people have been trying to make? That monopolies can’t perform business as usual? It is the classic catch-22.