|
|
| Microsoft News: Monopoly Here, Antitrust There |
 |
|
Wednesday, February 25 2004 @ 11:50 PM EST
|
There is news from the New York Times on Microsoft and the EU investigation: "Antitrust regulators from the 15 member nations of the European Union will gather here on March 15 to discuss a European Commission antitrust ruling against Microsoft, a diplomat close to one national regulator said on Wednesday.
"The commission has drafted a preliminary ruling that finds Microsoft guilty of abusing the dominant position of its Windows operating system - a finding that is expected to be supported by the national regulators, the diplomat said.
"A second meeting will be convened within a week to discuss corrective measures to impose on Microsoft. The second gathering of the so-called advisory committee will also discuss how much to fine the company."
There are two areas of guilt, according to the preliminary ruling, not sharing code to enable interoperability and tying Media Player software into Windows, which put rivals at an unfair competitive disadvantage: "Microsoft's own server software works better with Windows on PC's than rivals' server systems do, the commission found. Mario Monti, Europe's chief antitrust regulator, wants Microsoft to propose what computer code in Windows should be disclosed to ensure that rival programs and servers are compatible." They propose that Microsoft sell two versions of Windows, one with and one without Windows Media Player. This isn't a final ruling, of course, and the article says Microsoft still hopes to settle. Meanwhile,
AP is reporting a raid on Microsoft's Japanese offices: "Officials from Japan's fair trade watchdog raided the Japanese unit of U.S. software giant Microsoft Corp. Thursday on suspicion of anti-monopoly law violations, the authorities said.
"A commission official, speaking on customary condition of anonymity, said Microsoft Japan is suspected of attaching improper restrictive conditions when signing software deals with Japanese personal computer manufacturers, such as requiring that Japanese companies allow infringement of their patents." Proprietary software. Here is another article, this time on the positioning going on with respects to patents and search engines, that you might find interesting, as the proprietary generals fight and angle to decide which search engine we get to use. Their weapons of warfare are patents, not superior technology, concept, or features. Because there have been rumors about Microsoft and Google and SCO and Google, it caught my eye. All sides are busy building up their weapons arsenal: "To add strength to their claims, Google, Microsoft and others are taking the tack of writing copious academic papers that cite the method in question and get it on record, according to industry watchers. Academic papers can be used to prove 'prior art,' or that the idea or invention was floated before a patent comes along to claim the same thing.
"Microsoft, for example, has hired experts in the field of natural-language information retrieval, and the team is writing academic papers and filing patents related to search." And somehow this is all good for the economy.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 12:48 AM EST |
<< "signing software deals with Japanese personal computer
manufacturers, such as requiring that Japanese companies allow infringement of
their patents."
Yup. That sounds like the MO of
old "Billy boy".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dan_d on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 12:49 AM EST |
Others including PJ have said this, but I think it's very clear that patents
will have to become Groklaw's next big focus area. Even antitrust is relatively
unimportant by comparison, IMHO.
I suspect the value of a
community-based site in dealing with patent issues will be to locate "hidden"
patents before someone drags them into court, and to drag up old materials
demonstrating prior art that will invalidate particular patent claims. For
example, the W3C did precisely that in response to the Eolas patent case a couple
of months back. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Microsoft News: Monopoly Here, Antitrust There - Authored by: pukeko on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 01:35 AM EST
- Microsoft News: Monopoly Here, Antitrust There - Authored by: fb on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 01:37 AM EST
- Microsoft News: Monopoly Here, Antitrust There - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 01:42 AM EST
- Microsoft, patents and Europe: going badly - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 05:04 AM EST
- Microsoft News: Monopoly Here, Antitrust There - Authored by: Glenn on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 07:24 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: dmscvc123 on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 12:49 AM EST |
What exactly is the current alleged status of the SCO/MS agreement...is it a
license or a loan? If it's a loan instead of a license, couldn't that have
antitrust implications? As I recall SCO and MS have vacillated on their
explanation of it and SCO has refused to show it in court as part of IBM's
discovery since they are now saying it isn't a license if I'm not mistaken.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kickaha on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 12:55 AM EST |
How about M$ trying to patent virtual desktops?
<http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/02/25/1346201.shtml>
Can't this be considered to be a flagrant violation of
prior art?
Who is going to slap these folks on this front?
Anti-trust is a compelling front in this fight; how
about abuse of power?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 12:58 AM EST |
While he was speaking at Carnegie Mellon University, a student handed Bill Gates
a Linux CD:
'While laughs rose from the audience, Gates didn't
flinch, agreed to accept it and quipped: "How much is it
worth?"'
---
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Classic - Authored by: nonpartisan on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 01:12 AM EST
- You forgot... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 01:24 AM EST
- Classic - Authored by: Peter Smith on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 01:28 AM EST
- Classic - Authored by: grouch on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 01:33 AM EST
- How much is it worth? - Authored by: mobrien_12 on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 02:18 AM EST
- Classic - Authored by: ogre on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 04:05 AM EST
- How much... to Bill? - Authored by: anwaya on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 04:22 AM EST
- Classic - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 04:42 AM EST
- Priceless - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 05:35 AM EST
- More than you can afford, Bill - Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 09:36 AM EST
- "How much is it worth?" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 10:36 AM EST
- does this make billg an accountant? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 02:00 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 01:30 AM EST |
"And somehow this is good for the economy?" Well there are more people
working in the fields, that the principals (MS, Google, Inktomi, etc.) are
interested in, than before, more grad students are doing research and getting
their doctorates, so, all in all, yes it is better for the economy. If it
results in newer, better tools, and if the tools are reasonably priced or libre,
then it is definatly better for the economy.
We can hope that our preferred form (libre) of the software is available. The
only real fly in the ointment is that the "good" Admiral Poindexter's
evil snooping plan still lives on and this research can be used to that purpose.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PM on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 01:42 AM EST |
"How much is it worth?"
How much is the Mona Lisa worth?
Fortunately Linux, unlike the Mona Lisa, is relatively indestructible.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Maserati on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 01:51 AM EST |
| Bloomberg (via Slashdot) is reporting that Japanese officials have raided Microsoft's Tokyo offices. Repeat, raided.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 02:20 AM EST |
This is kind of a weird remark. Is it trying to say there is something sinister
about people at these companies writing academic papers?
> To add strength to their claims, Google, Microsoft and
> others are taking the tack of writing copious academic
> papers that cite the method in question and get it on
> record ...
Writing academic papers is a good thing. It gets the information out into
public view instead of letting it stay hidden away as a trade secret. In that
sense patents are a good thing too, but they are written in semi-legalese,
unpublicized, and checked only by patent examiners. Academic computer science
papers are refereed by other specialists in the field, and you generally can't
get them published if they leave out the important details or are unoriginal.
Also, a lot of the folks at Google are PhDs who are used to writing academic
papers. As an example, I really enjoyed the paper on the Google file system at
the last SOSP and spent a lot of time chatting about it with one of the authors
(an old co-worker of mine). Some of the folks working on search at Microsoft
are also PhDs (and also old co-workers of mine, as it happens). I don't think
they are writing papers in some sinister bid to make their patent filings look
more valid.
Also, the patents aren't particularly sinister either. Filing patents is just
something you have to do in today's industry climate. They're really more like
trading cards than weapons. If you don't get any, the other guy has a huge
stack of them and you have nothing to trade.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmc on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 02:26 AM EST |
Beeb reports the Japan story here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 03:08 AM EST |
PJ, is there any way of gettting more detail on Massachusetts current anti-trust
actions against M$ regarding Adobe Acrobat and searching. I find the limited
O/S support for Adobe 6.0 vs. 5.0 most peculiar! With the number of Linux
desktops on the rise, why would they drop Linux support?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 03:52 AM EST |
Interesting that MS are trying to establish prior art, which is effectively
adding to the non-patentable commons.
IBM have probably forgotten more about large-scale development than anyone else,
including MS, ever knew. Their adoption of Linux therefore amounts to a
declaration that for some programs a commons-based development ecology is better
than any they've tried - and they've tried a few. Stretching a point, you could
see Linux as Harlan Mills's Chief Programmer Teams, actually made to work on a
large scale.
The prediction? That MS Windows will be GPL or similar within 10 years, because
that will be the only way MS can compete with a superior development ecology. I
expect they're planning for it already, because it is the single most serious
counter they could mount to Linux. In parallel, expect them to try to move from
a product monopoly to a support monopoly, perhaps encompassing Linux too.
"MS Update for Linux", anyone?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- A Prediction - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 04:35 AM EST
- I think you are wrong - Authored by: redbluff67 on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 05:00 AM EST
- A Prediction - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 08:56 AM EST
- A Prediction - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 10:04 AM EST
- A Prediction - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 12:08 PM EST
- DRM Office and Xbox4 - Authored by: tgf on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 02:37 PM EST
- MS = Control - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 03:29 PM EST
- A Prediction - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 01:46 PM EST
- A Prediction - Authored by: J.F. on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 07:36 PM EST
- A Prediction - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 08:04 PM EST
- A Prediction - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 04:03 PM EST
- A Prediction - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 05:40 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: legal insanity on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 05:44 AM EST |
I think raid and talking to company officers is totally different.So the FUD to
save M$ has begun again.
I don't know what they had hoped to gain by trying to assign their-selves get
out of jail cards in the contracts. But I am hoping maybe this might be M$'s
waterloo, as with the (new) SCO trying on ibm for size, M$ trying this on a
company like Sony in Sony's backyard.What was they thinking.
---
Insanity Pleadings is the only Sensible Defense[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: N. on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 06:05 AM EST |
I'd like to move away completely from Win98 at home. I already use RedHat 9 on
two of the three machines I have at home, so will probably just use that,
however I have a few questions which I'm sure you lovely Linux people can help
me out with :)
1) How well does "wine" run? A nice general question, that! There are
a few apps which I run under Windows which I really like. One is Agent, which is
a news and email client. I also like using Macromedia Flash 5 rather a lot.
2) Is there an equivalant of TMPGEnc Plus? This is a GUI-driven AVI to
MPEG1/MPEG2 encoder that works rather well under Windows. I've tried using the
commandline versions of mencoder and transcode with little success, so will need
a Noddy GUI version to start off with. Or is it wine-able?
3) Any chance of getting Windows screensavers to work under Linux? A REAL long
shot that one :) But the Winter Wonderlands and Autumn Leaves screen savers from
RI SoftSystems are quite special.
4) I also need a visual soundfile editor/mixer. I currently use the one which
comes with Nero, which is incredibly good. Or is it wine-able?
5) I author my own VCDs and DVDs. What software would I use under Linux to do
that?
Hmmm... the more I think about it, the more complicated this could be. Please
prove me wrong!
Many thanks,
N.
---
N.
(Recent convert to Linux)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT - Want to move completely away from Windows 98 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 06:42 AM EST
- OT - Want to move completely away from Windows 98 - Authored by: RSC on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 06:44 AM EST
- OT - Want to move completely away from Windows 98 - Authored by: dex~ on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 06:44 AM EST
- OT - Want to move completely away from Windows 98 - Authored by: grouch on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 07:19 AM EST
- OT - Want to move completely away from Windows 98 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 08:35 AM EST
- 2 choices: migrate or emulate - Authored by: mitphd on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 09:27 AM EST
- OT - Want to move completely away from Windows 98 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 09:42 AM EST
- Professional Video Creation And Editing On Linux - Authored by: DarrenR114 on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 12:35 PM EST
- OT - Want to move completely away from Windows 98 - Authored by: rc on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 04:05 PM EST
- OT - Want to move completely away from Windows 98 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 05:33 PM EST
- OT - Want to move completely away from Windows 98 - Authored by: J.F. on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 07:52 PM EST
- OT - Want to move completely away from Windows 98 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 10:40 PM EST
- Thankyou! - Authored by: N. on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 05:09 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 06:41 AM EST |
This is indeed interesting as we are witnessing the behavior or the
corporation/executives in question. While the topics always involve certain
products (e.g. Windows, or Media Player, or others) the issue is how the company
operates within the law. In the U.S. leveraging one monopoly to gain a second
monopoly is a violation of antitrust statutes. The lawyers may argue over the
inclusion of a product in Windows (e.g. Internet Explorer), the real issue is
how is the corporation attempting to gain a second monopoly. Microsoft lost it's
U.S. case but just keeps right on going in different countries with the same
tactics and probably bound to lose in those places also. But they keep on trying
anyway. I really believe the executives will never wake up and should be
replaced. However, I doubt any of that will ever happen. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 06:46 AM EST |
Just going into a meeting so haven't had time to read all that has been said
yet, so I apologise if this is said already.
If one is going to use a community organisation to produce Prior Art to oppose
patents it is vitally important to make the effort visible. It is a defence
against prior art claims that the publication was obscure and so it would not be
reasonable to expect the inventor, as "a man skilled in the art" (UK
legal definition I think), to have seen it. So if this effort is to go ahead, as
I would suggest would be an excellent idea, it should be announced widely. And
interesting bits on it publicised regularly.
I would also suggest that a board be made available for any "good
ideas" anything software related that someone may try to patent in the
future. If that were to be known about in all the major news sources for open
source activity anything revealed there would be unpatentable.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ABM_rulez on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 06:48 AM EST |
| According to Heise, two of the comissioners Frits Bolkestein (Internal EU
affairs) and Pascal Lamy (Trade Comissioner) are trying to convince the EU
comission to treat MS as gentle as possible. Because they want not harm the IP
rights MS has the comissioners tend to opose the idea of forcing MS to publish
their interface standards.
You may find the original German article here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RSC on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 07:02 AM EST |
I have this horrible feeling, that the polictics of the world at the moment, is
not at all what we need to see all this motion on the MS front amount to
anything worthwhile.
The US caved to the smell of MS money. You have so many "so called"
unbiased media/analysts who follow the smell of it, and I can see the EU and UK
lapping it up too.
Have I become to cynical, or have the world become to greedy to do the
"right" thing?
RSC.
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 07:57 AM EST |
| ...but its a gift from a lot of people. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 08:17 AM EST |
One with media player. Cost, 100 Euros.
One without media player. Cost, 100 Euros.
Retail and bulk licensees are *totally free* to choose either version.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Two versions - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 08:30 AM EST
- Two versions - Authored by: Jude on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 08:53 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 08:22 AM EST |
It would be in Microsoft'e enlightened self-interest to make its API's
accessible, because the failure to do so is a key factor in discouraging any
third of third pasrty innovation on the Microsoft platform. In the long run,
encouraging third party innovation may be Microsoft's only viable strategy if it
wishes to coexist rasther than engage in a suicidal showdown with with Open
Source.
On the other hand, I don't see why the EU, Canada or the US government should
devote time and resources to save Microsoft from its own short-sightedness. Like
it or not, Microsoft is a learning organization and the effect of Open Source's
strong and deepening inroads is making itself felt on Microsoft's heretofore
knee-jerk responses. My attitude is that a few well aimed blows to the head by
an effective competitor will do more to get Microsoft's attitude than any
governmental regulation that Microsoft could evade and thumb its nose at. I
understand that Microsoft went out of its way to badmouth Open Source with
various Federal agencies including the NSA until it found that ithis particular
tactic was backfiring big time, so Microsoft is now in favor of open
competition.
In dealing with Microsoft, I would use sweet words of reason only as kid gloves
to cover up an underlying iron fist strategy of Pavlovian negative
reinforcement. Yep, I am a hypocrite![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 08:29 AM EST |
Microsoft were found guilty of attempting to monopolise media distribution by
bundling Media Player with Windows. They should be allowed to continue
distributing Media Player, provided they open up (i.e. put into the public
domain) all the standards for the default audio/video codecs in WMP (.wmv or
.wma), and relinquish any patent rights they have on them.
This would do much to level the playing field, by allowing other companies to
create players and encoders which would interoperate with Windows.
It would also allow open source developers to use Microsoft's video/audio codecs
in their own projects.
This solution allows Microsoft to continue providing its customers with the all
the software it likes, whilst preventing the company from tying anybody in to
its proprietary formats.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Charles Pouliot on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 08:51 AM EST |
I think we need to add to or modify this site to have some
kind of discussion on software patents.
Perhaps we should first start with an article about patents
and their original purpose / utilization; how it has changed
(according to some, been messed up) in recent years; and
then, some brainstorming on what kind of software patents
would make sense under the various viewpoints on patents
that may have a basis in past practice or current practice.
Any takers?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 09:27 AM EST |
...in my opinion, anyway:
Microsoft will concede and agree to remove Media Player from the version of
Windows that is distributed in the EU, and MS Media Player will only be
available by download.
EU commission will announce victory, and then spend the next six months patting
themselves on the back.
What will *really* happen is that Media Player won't be removed at all, it will
only be hidden. The "download" will be miniscule, taking only seconds
even on a dialup, and it will run almost instantaneously. The download will be
among the "recommended" updates offered via Windows Update.
Meanwhile, anyone who wants an alternative player will still have to download
megabytes from the vendor site and go through a typical install procedure, and
they'll continue to endure the hassle of windows updates that
"accidentally" break the non-MS media players.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jez_f on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 09:41 AM EST |
And somehow this is all good for the economy.
Actualy the cost of litigation gets included in the GDP so in a sense it
is good for the economy (so long as you take GDP to be a mesure of
ecconomic health).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 09:48 AM EST |
Wow. Raiding Microsoft's offices because of anti-monopoly tactics?
What a novel concept..... now why didn't I think of that? Good to see
others than the EU waking up.
And I might add, about time some figured out what's going on. Lord
knows my government (US) frittered away my tax dollars all for a
slap on the wrist, if it was even that. Though Microsoft could end up
with a similar result with the EU. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 09:50 AM EST |
| The Japanese case illustrates a fact that has gotten very little press: MS is
terrified of patents.
Every contract that MS enters into (and I mean
every, down to purchase orders) includes a "patent non-assertion clause"
in the fine print. In effect, if you do any business at all with MS you've just
licensed them to every patent you hold. Other companies negotiate patent
cross-licensing agreements, which can take quite a while. MS manages to avoid
this by getting the equivalent of licenses to everyone's patent portfolios just
by selling them MSWindows.
I have memos from Corporate Legal to all employees
notifying them that under no circumstances are any agreements, no matter
how seemingly innocent, to be entered into with Microsoft for this very reason,
since the Company's patent portfolio is one of its main revenue sources.
They've apparently found funny fine print in stuff handed out at trade shows,
even.
Be warned. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 11:48 AM EST |
There are Linux versions of "Update for Linux" - SuSE has AutoYAST and
then there's Red Carpet from Ximian[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 12:27 PM EST |
>>And somehow this is all good for the economy.<<
Are you serious, or is this sarcasm?
I fear if this breaks out into an all-out patent war a lot of good companies are
going to be destroyed, and *nobody* but the lawyers who encourage this sort of
stuff are going to benefit from it.
---
What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 05:31 PM EST |
From personal experience, Wine runs agent just fine. I couldn't live without it
myself ;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
