AqD wrote:
> The existence of Linux and Firefox just prove the M$ monopoly
> doesn't exist, and all of those accusations are false.
> Monopoly cannot exist, unless the company put a gun in front
> you - otherwise you can always make your own products.
>
> Besides, most governments have fairly large bureaucracy which
> can act as customers to affect the market without using forced
> laws that violate human rights.
According to the US Department of Justice, Microsoft engaged in
anticompetitive licensing of its operating system to dominate the
competition:
*1994:*
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0046.htm
[quote]
The United States of America, acting under the direction of the
Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil action
to prevent and restrain the defendant Microsoft Corporation
("Microsoft") from using exclusionary and anticompetitive
contracts to market its personal computer operating system
software. By these contracts, Microsoft has unlawfully maintained
its monopoly of personal computer ("PC") operating systems and
has unreasonably restrained trade.
Virtually all major PC manufacturers find it necessary to offer
Microsoft operating systems on most of their PCs. Microsoft's
monopoly power allows it to induce these manufacturers to enter
into anticompetitive, long-term licenses under which they must
pay royalties to Microsoft not only when they sell PCs containing
Microsoft's operating systems, but also when they sell PCs
containing non-Microsoft operating systems.
These anticompetitive contracts help Microsoft maintain its
dominance in the PC operating system market. By inhibiting
competing operating systems' access to PC manufacturers,
Microsoft's exclusionary contracts slow innovation and deprive
consumers of an effective choice among competing PC operating
systems.
These contracts outlined below constitute illegal monopo-
lization and unlawful restraints of trade, and the United States
seeks this Court's order declaring Microsoft's anticompetitive
contracts illegal and otherwise remedying the unlawful effects of
Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct.
[/quote]
US Department of Justice regarding anticompetitive acts against
IBM with regarding to Windows 95 and Lotus:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
[quote]
122. The IBM PC Company had begun negotiations with Microsoft
for a Windows 95 license in late March 1995. For the first two
months, the negotiations had progressed smoothly and at an
expected pace. After IBM announced its intention to acquire
Lotus, though, the Microsoft negotiators began canceling meetings
with their IBM counterparts, failing to return telephone calls,
and delaying the return of marked-up license drafts that they
received from IBM. Then, on July 20, 1995, just three days after
IBM announced its intention to pre-install SmartSuite on its PCs,
a Microsoft executive informed his counterpart at the IBM PC
Company that Microsoft was terminating further negotiations with
IBM for a license to Windows 95. Microsoft also refused to
release to the PC Company the Windows 95 "golden master" code.
The PC Company needed the code for its product planning and
development, and IBM executives knew that Microsoft had released
it to IBM's OEM competitors on July 17. Microsoft's purported
reason for halting the negotiations was that it wanted first to
resolve an ongoing audit of IBM's past royalty payments to
Microsoft for several different operating systems.
[/quote]
*1995*
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0100/0102.htm
[quote]
This Court cannot ignore the obvious. Here is the dominant firm
in the software industry admitting it "preannounces" products to
freeze the current software market and thereby defeat the
marketing plans of competitors that have products ready for
market. Microsoft admits that the preannouncement is solely for
the purpose of having an adverse impact on a competitor's
product. Its counsel states it has advised its client that the
practice is perfectly legal and it may continue the practice.
This practice of an alleged monopolist would seem to contribute
to the acquisition, maintenance, or exercise of market share.
[/quote]
Following describes Microsoft's anticompetitive acts to inhibit
competition by preventing others from successfully integrating
their products with Windows:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc-00029523.htm
[quote]
As recognized in the CIS and D.C. Circuit Court opinion,
Microsoft has prevented competitors from offering meaningful
Middleware alternatives in three main ways: (1) Microsoft has
taken advantage of the fluidity of software to continually
reconfigure its products in ways that make it difficult or
impossible for even superior middleware offerings of competitors
to remain viable; (2) Microsoft has refused to disclose interface
information that would enable competitors to offer middleware
products that operate effectively; and (3) Microsoft has engaged
in coercive sales and marketing tactics that force distributors
and consumers to favor even inferior Microsoft products over
those of competitors. See CIS, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,461.
Microsoft's refusal to disclose meaningful and timely interface
information has been especially damaging to competitors, like
Novell, who have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to develop
superior alternatives to Microsoft products in the increasingly
rare instances in which they have been able to obtain, or
ascertain on their own, the critical interface information that
allows for the effective interoperation of their middleware with
Microsoft operating systems. As a result, the public is denied
the benefits of innovation and the opportunity to choose among
competing alternatives.
The CIS recognizes that meaningful disclosure of interface
information by Microsoft is essential to effective relief. The
CIS explains: "[T]he effect of Section III.D [of the RPFJ] is to
assure to Non-Microsoft Middleware meaningful access to the same
services provided by the operating system as those available to
Microsoft Middleware. Microsoft Middleware will not have access
to any hidden or proprietary features of Windows Operating System
Products that might allow it to operate more effectively." Id. at
59,468. Unfortunately, the RPFJ again fails to deliver on DoJ's
purported goal.
[/quote]
Here, we see instances of Microsoft moving the goal posts, to
achieve monopolisation:
[quote]
In contrast to the RPFJ, a meaningful remedy must account for the
fact that Microsoft manipulates interface information in a
variety of ways to preclude competition. Although too numerous to
recount, Microsoft's tactics include:
* "Secret Interfaces" - Microsoft does not publish all the
interfaces it uses and does not publish all the interface
information that others need to develop products that
interoperate with Microsoft software.
* "Crippled Interfaces" - For some functions, Microsoft
publishes information about an interface that is inferior to the
interface that Microsoft itself uses to accomplish a function, or
publishes incomplete information about an interface.
* "Kick Me Interfaces" - Sometimes, Microsoft publishes
information about an interface that Microsoft uses to perform a
function, but it "marks" non-Microsoft software in a way that
assures the interface will operate in an inferior way. Microsoft
can "mark" competitors software through tagging, signing,
encrypted passwords, or by noting the absence of such features.
* "Moving Interfaces" - If, by some means, a third party has
been able to obtain adequate interface information that Microsoft
doesn't want it to have, Microsoft will simply move the
interface. For example, Novell successfully figured out how to
enable its directory services software to interoperate with
Windows NT. To counter Novell's success, in Windows 2000
Microsoft broke up and moved the computer files containing the
interface information used by Novell and marked, or signed,
information required for the interfaces so that Novell could
neither use Microsoft's interface information nor replace it.
The typical result of such tactics is that Microsoft makes
competing products appear inferior to Microsoft's products.
Microsoft's actions may make a competing product appear slower,
require more memory, or perform with limited functionality. These
tactics also enable Microsoft to persuade customers to buy
Microsoft's inferior and/or more expensive products simply to
avoid Microsoft's roadblocks.(15)
[/quote]
--
HPT
|
|
