Microsoft has performed an illegal function and should be shut down.
,----[ Quote ]
| Free PC manufacturers from Microsoft's grip. Microsoft has used its
| monopoly power to bully original equipment manufacturers into installing
| only Windows on computers. A court-ordered remedy of nondiscriminatory
| OEM licensing of Windows would go a long way toward solving this
| problem. Pricing and licensing should be "transparent," openly
| published, and evenhandedly applied.
|
| Don't let Microsoft use its other software monopolies to limit
| competition. Just as Microsoft used its Windows monopoly to
| threaten the competition, so it is using its Office franchise
| to scare off competitors and dominate new Internet markets.
| Its preferred strategy is the notorious "embrace, extend,
| and extinguish" gambit...
`----
http://web.archive.org/web/20041009195732/http%3A//www.sfbg.com/nader/100.html
Since it's on the Web Archive, which may expire, I will append the thing in
full, at the end of this post. This shouldn't disappear. It's an important
piece of evidence.
Related:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653
Microsoft's Dirty OEM-Secret
,----[ Quote ]
| They are, in short the secret to Microsoft's success. And the word
| secret is to be taken quite literally: No OEM may talk about the
| contents of his contract, or he will lose his license, and (assumption)
| likely be sued for breach of contract as well.
`----
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110
>From 1997:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/14653.stm
>From 2004:
http://www.theregister.com/2004/01/20/microsoft_gets_green_light/
2005:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050829-5253.html
Microsoft 'killed Dell Linux' - States
,----[ Quote ]
| The States' remedy hearing opened in DC yesterday, and States attorney
| Steven Kuney produced a devastating memo from Kempin, then in charge of
| Microsoft's OEM business, written after Judge Jackson had ordered his
| break-up of the company. Kempin raises the possibility of threatening
| Dell and other PC builders which promote Linux.
|
| "I'm thinking of hitting the OEMs harder than in the past with anti-Linux.
| ... they should do a delicate dance," Kempin wrote to Ballmer, in what is
| sure to be a memorable addition to the phrases ("knife the baby", "cut off
| the air supply") with which Microsoft enriched the English language in the
| first trial. Unlike those two, this is not contested.
|
| [...]
|
| Earlier memos described that it was "untenable" that a key Microsoft
| partner was promoting Linux. Kuney revealed that Dell disbanded its Linux
| business unit in early 2001. Dell quietly pulled Linux from its desktop PCs
| in the summer of 2001, IDG's Ashlee Vance discovered subsequently, six
| months after we heard Michael Dell declare his love of Linux on the desktop
| the previous winter.
|
| Compaq was also mentioned in other memos, with Microsoft taking the line
| that OEMs should "meet demand but not help create demand" for Linux.
`----
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/19/microsoft_killed_dell_linux_states/
Jury Hears Microsoft Competition Suit
,----[ Quote ]
| A judge on Friday told jurors they must accept as fact that a
| federal court found in 1999 that Microsoft holds a monopoly over
| computer operating systems and that it restricted computer
| manufacturers' ability to use competing systems.
|
| [...]
|
| She said she'll show that the company used its monopoly power
| to exclude competition and control prices and that it conspired with
| other companies to restrain trade, maintaining what she called a
| chokehold on software competitors and computer manufacturers.
`----
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061201/microsoft_trial.html?.v=1
Published today (Wintel joins the club):
Court tells Intel to hand over foreign documents in antitrust case
,----[ Quote ]
| In June 2005, AMD filed a massive antitrust lawsuit against Intel, accusing
| the larger CPU maker of abusing its dominant position in the worldwide PC
| market to prevent AMD's CPUs from making significant inroads. The suit
| alleges that Intel customers like Toshiba, Gateway, Dell, Hitachi, and
| others agreed to exclusive deals with Intel in exchange for "cash payments,
| discriminatory pricing or marketing subsidies conditioned on the exclusion
| of AMD."
`----
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061217-8436.html
Original post in full:
May 8, 2000
Error message
Microsoft has performed an illegal function and should be shut down.
By Ralph Nader
Listen to Ralph Nader's March 3 speech in San Francisco.
AS THE TITANIC antitrust case against Microsoft moves into its endgame, the
question of the hour is what remedies will be effective in taming this
wealthy and ruthless monopoly.
The goal of any set of remedies should be to ensure that there will, in fact,
be innovation, competition, and reasonable prices in some of the most
important sectors of our economy: software, computers, and
telecommunications.
Here are some suggestions:
Free PC manufacturers from Microsoft's grip. Microsoft has used its monopoly
power to bully original equipment manufacturers into installing only Windows
on computers. A court-ordered remedy of nondiscriminatory OEM licensing of
Windows would go a long way toward solving this problem. Pricing and
licensing should be "transparent," openly published, and evenhandedly
applied.
? Don't let Microsoft use its other software monopolies to limit competition.
Just as Microsoft used its Windows monopoly to threaten the competition, so
it is using its Office franchise to scare off competitors and dominate new
Internet markets. Its preferred strategy is the notorious "embrace, extend,
and extinguish" gambit: embrace the new Internet authoring tools as part of
the dominant Office software suite; extend control of the new market by
introducing proprietary standards that are incompatible with competitors';
extinguish competing software through manipulative licensing and bundling
deals with OEMs. The court should require Microsoft to separate Microsoft
Office from Windows, and the new owner of Office should be required to port
the entire platform to multiple non-Windows operating systems.
Ensure that "Internet navigation" options remain open. Microsoft has insisted
to OEMs that it retain control of the "first screen," or default choices for
Internet navigation menus. It has done so to retain control over the time
and attention of computer users, whose reliance on the default "first
screen" can be used to channel them to certain e-commerce sites. Here's the
danger: if any single firm exercises too much control over Internet
navigation, competition in e-commerce markets will suffer. Microsoft should
be prohibited from imposing such terms.
Protect interoperability of hardware, software, and network protocols. The
usefulness of software programs depends on their ability to work (and
coexist) with other software programs, with hardware systems, and with the
protocols of telecommunications networks. It should come as no surprise that
Microsoft frequently and deliberately introduces barriers to compatibility
and interoperability, preventing competitors from working with Microsoft's
monopolizing Windows or Office products. One remedy is to force Microsoft to
support open standards for software and to provide extensive technical
information in a timely manner and in usable formats and protocols to any
company that requests it.
Adopt structural remedies, because the past six years of antitrust problems
with Microsoft have demonstrated that the company cannot be trusted. Its
conduct during the trial itself offers the best evidence of this point. The
company subverted the intent if not the language of a 1995 consent order, by
integrating its browser into the Windows operating system. Effective
remedies should, as much as possible, avoid "conduct remedies" that require
continuing court oversight.
Ideally, a breakup of the company would go further than the Justice
Department proposal to divide the operating system line of business from the
application and other lines of business. The court could insist that
Microsoft separate the Internet Explorer browser from Microsoft Office. That
way, the browser market could become competitive again and the owner of
Microsoft Office would find a way to function with more than one browser.
This would be an important result in a world where the browser is key in
setting Web publishing standards and links to e-commerce sites and where
Microsoft is driving for dominance in Internet authoring tools.
The court should also consider forcing Microsoft to spin off, as a separate
company, all of its online services and minority interests in networking
companies. There is no legitimate tie between the software businesses and
online/network services ? only anticompetitive mischief.
The antitrust remedies that ultimately bring the marauding Microsoft to heel
will have far-reaching consequences ? on future software design and choices,
on consumer prices, on the competitiveness of e-commerce, on the very
structure of the Internet and hence our culture.
The factual case against Microsoft has been made devastatingly clear. If
Microsoft's long record of deception and untrustworthiness is to be ended,
the public remedies must be as bold, sweeping, and effective as the
company's private power.
____________________________
In the Public Interest publishes each Monday on sfbg.com.
|
|
