Comments on: Microsoft's long-playing business record

Have courtroom battles become just another business expense for the software giant?

[David Mohring]

A plea for relief from Microsoft's escalating anti-competitive tactics.

A plea for relief from Microsoft's escalating anti-competitive tactics.
http://itheresies.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_itheresies_archive.html
An open letter to antitrust, competition, consumer and trade practice monitoring agency officials worldwide.

[arthur-b]

the EU is learning

Basicly it boils down to the following:

How good is whatever law (and what it protects and stands for) if the profits gained from abusing it outway the loses risked by abusing it.

Notice that I said: risked.

Somehow someone put a price tag on the quality of law. And thus on (international) politics, political integraty, respect of international laws and the fact that laws differ from country to country, etc..

And before anyone starts pointing fingers: the Echelon project wasn't the smartest move.

It's a good thing that the EU made some form of a stand. That is, that there's a price to be paid for not respecting the laws of various countries. Some would not agree with that, I'm sure, but how commercially motivated (or uninformed) are those people anyway? Respect theigh neighbour until it hurts your profits, right? Well, both can play that game.

Others did better however, they forced a monopolist convicted of abusing its powers to come up with tailor made versions of its products. It seems such monopolists do bend under the right kind of pressure. But still some people would like that the EU simply falls in line and do as they are told. Would that be money speaking or something else?

Even stranger, that same convicted monopolist totally understands that laws differ internationally. Why else would they start new trials in various countries at the same time when all they have to do is wait for the US courts to decide to know what's best for the world (however, that US specific part seems to go not that well for them)? Yes, talking about Lindows here. And no, either you respect that the US law decides for all in all cases or you don't. No middle ground.

Hmmmm, looks like someone is using international laws whatever way they please. Didn't know that international laws are a business play tool nowedays. Looks to me that politicians around the world have a thing or two to learn before opening their mouth and sending letters around.

[olePigeon]

Break them up already!

This is so ridiculous, they're literally laughing in the face of
the American justice system.

Break them up. Do something like AT&T. Make them into
an Office Company, Windows Company, Internet Company,
and a Hardware company. Then don't let them share funds,
partnership, or merge for 20 years.

Since their Office suite was pretty much the only product
that made any money, the baby Microsofts would HAVE to
play it fair just to stay in business. Thus, allowing
competition and innovation to prevail in the marketplace.

How is this so difficult? They proposed it in 1997, FFS just
do it already!

[dmanrique]

Use some common sense

This is very simple. Is Microsoft the only OS company in the market?

Hell no, there is and has been operating systems from Apple, Sun, Novell, Red Hat, SuSe, Mandrake, AIX, et al. A monopoly indicates there is no other competition. The only reason MS gained the stronghold they did was from successful software development and marketing.

What do you think is the difference if MS was broken into various business units??? Are you blind enough to think MS is not already divided into multiple business units that reports to different mgmt that reports up to the CEO? There is so many flaws with your break-up theory, I do not have time to point them out. There would be no difference with regards to market dominance if they were independant business units because the bottom line is they are in business to make money, and to increase value to the shareholders.

This site is so slanted it makes me sick.

Reply

Or, they could do what they did in '96, by spinning off the companies on their own without help from the Govt. That will happen less likely tho

[alek_nedic]

Office Company

http://www.analogstereo.com/mazda_3_owners_manual.htm

[bjbrock]

Microsoft is more powerful than ...

our justice system. They have learned to beat the DOJ by outspending them.

However, the headlines today show that there is one player that has the ability to bring even MS to a state of scrambling - the consumer.

If the consumer is allowed to know the true facts and not lied to as MS has been doing, the consumer can take care of his market. Even though MS has spouted rhetoric and lies, it was just a matter of time (and money) before the consumer was hit square in the face with the disparity between MS's tower of untruths and what is really going on as evidenced by his (the consumers) bank account. That is, if MS's products are so wonderful and good for the consumer, why are these products draining his bank account?

MS has been telling the consumer all about the joys of MS products. And hearing about it, the consumer tried it. Now, the consumer is to the point where they want to see all this nirvana they were told they were buying. Well, MS can't show the consumer anything near what they were promised. OH, BUT WAIT... SP2! I guess they forgot to put it in the original package. MS has been busted by the consumer.

When all the smoke clears, however bloody the battle, the consumer's flag will be flying overhead. MS will stand only where the consumer lets them stand and the DOJ will be scratching their head wondering what just happened.

No matter whether you think MS is wonderful or awful, there is no question about how unhappy more and more consumers are becoming. And the only truth that really matters is the truth as the consumer perceives it. If there is any question as to how this story ends, a couple of economics courses from your local university will have you in the know before the intermission.