Microsoft wins a round :-(

[TornSoul]

I found this article on Slashdot:

 

The U.S. Department of Justice announced that it had been instructed by the Bush Administration to cease its drive to break up Microsoft, which has already been found guilty of violating U.S. anti-trust law in a complaint filed by the Federal Government and 19 states. See the BBC or CNN for more. It isn't clear what wristslap, errr, remedy the Justice Department will seek instead.

[Wilhuf]

I wonder how many millions of (apparently wasted) US taxpayer dollars went into prosecuting this so far.

[Sarcastic Saint]

Mmmm....i wonder....wasnt Bill Gates a member of the "skull & Bones" 'club'.

Just like G.bush junior....just like G.Bush Senior....just like the current vice-president....not to mention the current and the ex-boss of the CIA....which everybody knows was founded by members of this very same Skull and Bones society....well....just a little info that i needed to get of my chest....

[Wilhuf]

George is a Yaley, Bill is a Harvard dropout

[TornSoul]

Actually Bill use to be a good guy, a Hacker. I guess he turned to the Dark Side.

[Red_XIIII]

I used to like MS... but since XP is shiping with that damn Key u can only use once, and is invaild once u upgrade ure system with 3 diff componets, bah SCREW MS idiots they are, gonna lose i alot of money i bet over XP and that reg key, I hear the OEM versions of XP will not have it...

[Wilhuf]

He still is a good guy.

[GonkH8er]

lol good guy hey? just recently he shut down a major organization giving computers to people who need them desperately.

[Guest Krayt Tion]

I wonder how big a tax break he gets for making charitable contributions compared to the money he spends in those contributions. I'd be interested in some exact figures from both sides of the equation.

[Mafia_Jabba]

Millions of tax tollars to us is just pennies to the government.

[Tre Lightshadow]

Firstly, the key has to be reusable, my friend downloaded a bootleg copy and it runs fine. And another thing I found funny are all those people who support Mac cuz they think MS sux, well MS owns 150 million dollars of Apple's stock. So by supporting Mac/Apple you support Microsoft.

[KordKelly]

Originally posted by Tre Lightshadow:

<STRONG>Firstly, the key has to be reusable, my friend downloaded a bootleg copy and it runs fine. And another thing I found funny are all those people who support Mac cuz they think MS sux, well MS owns 150 million dollars of Apple's stock. So by supporting Mac/Apple you support Microsoft.</STRONG>

 

Well said...

 

On the XP key issue...

 

The license states it will be for multiple computers(exact numbers are not available, but sources say 3...2 desktop and a laptop)

Once the OS is installed, you have 30 days to activate it. Once activated, it puts a hardware "tag" on your HDD. If your hardware configuration changes drastically, you need to reactivate...If you have PC's with similar configurations...(figure it out )...If you need to re-install, as long as your configuration doesn't change, no need to re-activate...

Originally posted by Red_IIII:

I used to like MS... but since XP is shiping with that damn Key u can only use once, and is invaild once u upgrade ure system with 3 diff componets, bah SCREW MS idiots they are, gonna lose i alot of money i bet over XP and that reg key

 

 

If your going to flame...at least have the decency to have your facts straight...

 

[ September 08, 2001: Message edited by: KordKelly ]

[Wilhuf]

Well, you could call the Gates Foundation and ask them what kind of tax writeoff he and his wife gets. Somehow I doubt they will share that info up front.

 

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Bill uses the deducatble clause for donations, just like most taxpayers who actually give money to charities.

 

Apparently the evil and greedy Bill 'Mr. Assimilation' Gates has stated he will be donating his entire fortune to the Gates Foundation for charities, rather than giving it to heirs.

[Wilhuf]

Which group did Bill Gates 'shut down'? His foundation page lists many dozens of organizations which are recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars of charitble donation.

 

I'm guessing these donations will go a lot further actually to make the world a better place than the all-too-popular incessant whining about Microsoft's unfair business practices.

 

Like I said, how much US taxpayer money was wasted in this still-born DoJ attempt at breaking up Microsoft? Where can we get a refund? Between Kenn Starr and this I think we're owed a lot of back tax money.

[ed_silvergun]

I just saw on <A HREF="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! Daily News</A> that <A HREF="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010907/tc/microsoft_antitrust_states_dc_1.html">two states are warning of separate lawsuits</A> if they decide that the Justice Department is "going too easy" on Microsoft. Make of that what you will.

[Guest Krayt Tion]

I fail to see what Bill Gates' personal donnations to charity have to do with Microsoft's questionable and annoying business ethnics.

 

I would have much prefered the US Government to break up Microsoft into seperate companies for OSes and applications. Now, I will simply have to deal with more questionable integrated crap shoved down my throat from them in the future. That has very little if nothing to do with what Mr. Gates does with this personal spending money.

[Wilhuf]

The linkage between Microsoft Business practice and Bill's chartible contributions is very simple.

 

Bill Gates makes direct personal contributions to his foundation. These contributions are drawn from his own personal fortune. His own fortune is in large part generated by profits/revenue generated by Microsoft. Microsoft's business practices have a direct impact on corporate profitability.

 

So far noone has quantified the benefit to the consumer of breaking up Microsoft. Have Microsoft operating systems or software costs dropped? Would they if Microsoft were broken apart? Or was this breakup persued mostly for the benefit of other large software companies (e.g. SUN)? I don't recall the list of plaintiffs.

[TornSoul]

Bill Gates has more money than he can spend and he keeps getting richer. I doubt he'll miss a few million for charity.

Big buisiness is like politics. Image is everything in politics (especially in the US) He needs a good image to be successfull and giving to charity helps give him a good image. He still is the face of Microsoft, so if he has a good image, so does Microsoft.

 

In the mean time, schools get into financial problems because of the high costs of Windows and other Microsoft products.

[Guest Kurgan]

Monopolies = (non-natural variety) bad for economy, bad for consumers, bad for competition.

 

You can read that in any basic economics textbook.

 

Yes, Microsoft has done some great things for the industry in the past, yes, Bill Gates has given money to charity which sure was nice of him.

 

BUT... they're still a drain on innovation and a crusher of competition in the industry, and I for one do not wish to support them in that any more than necessary.

 

It's true, if Bill Gates dropped a $1000 bill on the ground, it would not be worth his time to stoop to pick it up.

 

My 2 cents... ; )

 

Kurgan

 

[ September 10, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]

[Wilhuf]

Which schools get in to trouble because of the high cost of software?

 

It's not a 'few million' that Bill is donating. It's several hundred million. Sure, even several hundred million wont 'hurt' Bill Gates. Since when is giving to charity supposed to 'hurt?'

 

Moreover, the donations are made on Gates' behalf, not Microsoft, although it does help Microsoft's 'image' in the arena of public opinion.

 

Meanwhile, the DoJ has accomplished nothing to bring down the cost of software for the consumer. While Gates is actually donating money to help out these many dozens of organizations.

 

Chalk it up to 'propaganda' or 'public relations,' or 'hype.' Call it what you will, but the reality is that this money does help the recipient organizations in their efforts.

 

One could just as easily conclude that DoJ efforts to 'break up' Microsoft are nothing more than expensive 'publicity' by a government organization to create the illusion that government is actually doing something to help 'level the playing field' and 'protect the consumer.'

 

How would a Microsoft breakup be of any benefit to the consumer?

 

Gates isn't required to make these donations. There are other individuals and groups with as much wealth as Billy Gates. Yet their charitable donations add up to nothing by comparison.

 

[ September 10, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]

[StormHammer]

Originally posted by Wilhuf:

<STRONG>Meanwhile, the DoJ has accomplished nothing to bring down the cost of software for the consumer.

 

One could just as easily conclude that DoJ efforts to 'break up' Microsoft are nothing more than expensive 'publicity' by a government organization to create the illusion that government is actually doing something to help 'level the playing field' and 'protect the consumer.'

 

How would a Microsoft breakup be of any benefit to the consumer?

</STRONG>

 

I don't think it is simply a stunt to obtain more public support for the government. A break up of Microsoft could potentially level the playing field.

 

Microsoft is huge, and has huge resources that it can effectively throw at any problem or issue that arises against it - the crusher tactics Kurgan talked about. They can effectively kill off or buy out innovations that do not belong to them in order to try and dominate the whole industry.

 

If Microsoft was broken up, each entity would no longer have such vast financial resources to use against potential competitors. They would have to rely on the features and durability of their individual products in the market place, whereas now they are in such a dominating market position that the end consumer often has little choice.

 

How many PC suppliers offer alternative OS's pre-installed? Not nearly as many as there should be, IMO. Why? Because of Microsoft's bullying tactics. They have their fingers in so many pies, they can threaten to withdraw support/stocks of product B in order to ensure a supplier stocks product A. This often leads to strong marketing of MS products to the detriment of similar competitive products.

 

Also, they could no longer blatantly lie about certain issues. Didn't they stress at one point that Internet Explorer was such an integral part of the Windows OS that the OS would not work without it? Then someone proved that was not the case. It was a smart move claiming your web browser was part of your operating system - because of the massive user base for Windows. Everyone got Internet Explorer whether they wanted it or not - which effectively killed off the potential developments of competing web browsers who had to intitially charge for their products. In other words - market domination.

 

And for all those who claim Internet Explorer comes FREE with Windows obviously does not understand the basic business principle of hidden costs. You are paying for IE in the amount that is charged for Windows - it only appears that you are getting it for nothing. It is an illusion, in the same way that FREE parking space at superstores is an illusion. The cost of the FREE parking space is charged to you in the amount you pay for your groceries. It is an overhead cost - and overhead costs have to be built into your budget if you actually want to survive in any competitive market. The dot com bursting bubble is a prime example of this - you cannot run a business on promises of future profits, as many new e-companies have painfully discovered.

 

I am not so concerned that we will see price reductions - in fact, some prices may go up if Microsoft was forced to become several smaller companies - but I do believe there would be far greater choice of software, and suppliers would no longer have to suck up to the software giant that could potentially put them out of business. It is simply a matter of having that choice that would level the playing field, IMO.

[ed_silvergun]

Originally posted by Wilhuf:

<STRONG>How would a Microsoft breakup be of any benefit to the consumer?</STRONG>

 

What Kurgan said - simple economics. Currently Microsoft as one single company can "monopolise" (for want of a better word) the software market. By allowing the company to remain as one entity, we are allowing it to integrate functionality across a range of applications. Hence we have (for example) the Windows OS with a built-in Microsoft web browser, Internet Explorer.

 

Other products, such as Netscape, find it hard to compete, because the average punter will not bother to check out alternative software because there's no need. IE is already there. They can check their e-mail, surf the web, etc.

 

Now this is clearly bad for competition. Smaller software developers find it hard to get their products sufficient attention because Microsoft versions of the same applications are already built into Windows/only work with Windows.

 

Competition is essential for any healthy economy. It drives prices down (the key benefit for the consumer) and encourages growth, development and innovation. Conversely, a lack of competition leads to stagnation within the market.

 

Hence, it is of a direct benefit to the consumer for any market not to be dominated by one or two huge corporations. The link between increased competition and lower prices is not exactly rocket science. It is a generally accepted and widely applied economic theory.

 

Now presumably Gates has the power and the financial resources to break Microsoft up into smaller component parts, say, along the lines of Time Warner, for example. So why doesn't he? He obviously hasn't got to where he is by being stupid. And if he really has others' interests (particularly those of consumers) at heart, he would break up the company realising that what is best for consumers is increased competition.

 

As we know he's a) not stupid, and b) not short of money, the only reason I can see why he would not break the company up is because he is unwilling to face the increased competition.

[Wilhuf]

I think the above points illustrate my concern. The case is being prosecuted for the benefit of companies, not the consumer. Although maybe US anti-trust laws were not written to protect the consumer to begin with. Maybe the purpose was to protect businesses. Perhaps that will have to do for the time being.

 

The pre-Microsoft world was not characterized as having dozens of choices of low cost operating systems and software. Domainant (sucessful) software is not just a problem caused by Microsoft.

 

For instance, if any of you remember Lotus corporation and their 1-2-3 product. It was the only game in town for spreadsheet software (until Microsoft bust their market share). Before that, IBM was the only game in town.

 

Breaking up Microsoft is no guarantee that this cannot happen again, naturally.

 

Today it's also true that we do indeed have choices when it comes to hardware, software and operating systems beyond Microsoft. For instance, at least 1/3 of North American web servers are *nix based.

 

Well, and then there is Apple, for what they are worth anymore (last I read they had less than 5% PC market share though, probably less than that by now, and are being kept on life-support by Microsoft).

 

Also, I'm not sure a wellspring of new software from small developers would suddenly (or even gradually) bubble into the mainstream software market just because Microsoft was restructured.

 

Of course this hypothetical 'alternate software' already exists (and you can buy it on the web, as an alternative to Microsoft). Anything from Operating Systems to the great triumvirate of spreadsheets, word processing, and presentation software. But few seem to buy. Why?

 

Probably because 1. noone's ever heard of these alternatives 2. small developers haven't the budget for the massive advertising required to capture large market shares 3. consumers need microsoft-compatible software as a business system or contract requirement. I'd guess than factors 1 and 2 are actually the most significant, but obviously the 3rd cannot be ignored either.

 

I'm positive that breaking up Microsoft will not address issues 1 and 2.

[StormHammer]

Originally posted by Wilhuf:

<STRONG>I think the above points illustrate my concern. The case is being prosecuted for the benefit of companies, not the consumer. Although maybe US anti-trust laws were not written to protect the consumer to begin with. Maybe the purpose was to protect businesses. Perhaps that will have to do for the time being.</STRONG>

 

But surely if other companies benefit, those benefits will gradually filter down to the consumer? As other companies start to recapture some market share, the market should become more competitive - either in terms of software development, or in gradual price reductions.

 

<STRONG>The pre-Microsoft world was not characterized as having dozens of choices of low cost operating systems and software. Domainant (sucessful) software is not just a problem caused by Microsoft.

 

For instance, if any of you remember Lotus corporation and their 1-2-3 product. It was the only game in town for spreadsheet software (until Microsoft bust their market share). Before that, IBM was the only game in town.</STRONG>

 

Lotus 1-2-3? Heh...I remember VisiCalc when it first appeared on the Apple II!

 

I agree - when the market was young, obviously there were just a few dominant software producers - because they were the first with particular (good) products. When Microsoft came out with a competitive product to Lotus' 1-2-3, it levelled the playing field - there was consumer choice.

 

But if Lotus had been big and bold enough to buy out Microsoft - or if they had come to an agreement to bundle their product with every new PC being shipped at the time - then they could potentially have been in a totally dominant position, much as Microsoft is today.

 

[/QB]Breaking up Microsoft is no guarantee that this cannot happen again, naturally.[/QB]

 

I totally agree. There are no guarantees in business, only risks. Some pay off, others don't.

 

<STRONG>Today it's also true that we do indeed have choices when it comes to hardware, software and operating systems beyond Microsoft. For instance, at least 1/3 of North American web servers are *nix based.

 

Well, and then there is Apple, for what they are worth anymore (last I read they had less than 5% PC market share though, probably less than that by now, and are being kept on life-support by Microsoft).</STRONG>

 

I didn't say there was no choice, but little choice. And in a way, UNIX is another example of a monopoly in action - there used to be very little choice in the server market in general - unless it was a flavour of UNIX. Then Microsoft came along and managed to provide a viable alternative, and I commend them for that. They are trying hard to level that playing field - but I'd hate to see 90 per cent of the server market dominated by Microsoft, because then you would have a similar situation to that arising in the general PC consumer market.

 

<STRONG>Also, I'm not sure a wellspring of new software from small developers would suddenly (or even gradually) bubble into the mainstream software market just because Microsoft was restructured.</STRONG>

 

If Microsoft lost some of it's stranglehold on the market - by not being able to hold back Product B (such as a cheap Office bundle) if a Supplier doesn't ship their kit with Product A (such as Windows, which has a massive user base) - then perhaps more suppliers would start to explore other alternatives.

 

<STRONG>Of course this hypothetical 'alternate software' already exists (and you can buy it on the web, as an alternative to Microsoft). Anything from Operating Systems to the great triumvirate of spreadsheets, word processing, and presentation software. But few seem to buy. Why?

 

Probably because 1. noone's ever heard of these alternatives 2. small developers haven't the budget for the massive advertising required to capture large market shares 3. consumers need microsoft-compatible software as a business system or contract requirement. I'd guess than factors 1 and 2 are actually the most significant, but obviously the 3rd cannot be ignored either.

 

I'm positive that breaking up Microsoft will not address issues 1 and 2.</STRONG>

 

Actually, I think your 3rd point is probably the most significant. We now live in an age of compatibility - and because Microsoft has built such a massive market share, other products are finding they must become Microsoft compatible in order to make significant sales.

 

The only problem is, Microsoft is bound to be ahead here, because they provide the OS, as well as the suite of applications that run on it. It can be argued that MS is in a position to tweak new versions of the OS to support their own products better prior to release - and that is something other suppliers cannot do.

 

I agree that smaller developers don't have the sheer buying power to afford extensive marketing campaigns - or the clout to persuade suppliers their software is better.

 

However, if a whole slew of other developers had a chance to introduce some new standards of compatibility without fear of being bought out by the Microsoft Empire, then any of the break-up entities of Microsoft might have to finally sit up and take notice, and fully adopt standards other than their own in order to retain their part of the market share.

 

I think Linux has fallen into this trap. There are so many versions of Linux that there are bound to be issues of incompatibility - and until recently it has not been the most user-friendly OS to set up and maintain. Issues of compatibility need to be thoroughly ironed out before a larger number of users will commit to it as their primary OS.

 

No one is trying to destroy Microsoft - they are simply trying to break it's strangehold on the market, which I agree will take a considerable amount of time - perhaps the same amount of time it took Microsoft to create that stranglehold.

 

The problem is a considerably difficult one, and there may not be a swift change - but Microsoft's monopoly must be broken somehow, and it has to start somewhere.

 

If anything, I hope that the introduction of the XP line of MS products proves too bitter a pill for many to swallow. Perhaps more people will start to look for alternatives, and that can only be a good thing.

[rolsen]

I concur that Bill Gates' donations do not reflect on Microsoft's business practices. In fact, I'm a student at the University of Washington working toward a degree in Computer Engineering, and Mr. Gates has donated 7.5 million dollars towards the new Computer Science and Engineering building that is being constructed. Very generous.