uruloki’s lair

Via Slashdot, comments on the EU decision to fine Microsoft $613M. An large number of posts are either about how this “is a good thing, since George W. Bush prevented them from being punished here in the US.”

“What is often forgotten is that most competitors of MSFT are also US companies, so to limit MSFT’s monopoly would harm one US company, but benefit a lot of others many of which are also US companies.

So, the economic balance does not explain the US failure to correct this economically damaging condition, there must have been another reason. Probably plain old bribes, or just stupidity from the part of the Bush government to see the economic benefit to have sound markets with sound competition.”

“The EU will very likely stick to its guns. The only reason why the US didn’t begins with ‘W’.”

“The US DoJ looked set to implement a proper solution just a few years ago, but the election of President Bush put an end to that.”

Well, guys, its getting kind of confusing. Which companies are paying for the Bush presidency? I was pretty sure about Halliburton, but they’re in Microsoft’s pocket too? I sure am glad that there is nothing like that over in the EU, what with current EU members having the same corruption numbers as the countries that want to join (but they’re more concerned about the new peeps). Good thing that they have independent investigations over there too… It might also help if you pointed to some actual proof as to payments changing hands. Sure, you can keep blaming everything on Bush, but I can say that John Kerry is a Venusian and have it be a valid point with the amount of proof that you provide for your assertions.

I was going to say that there was a lot of griping about getting the Windows APIs as opposed to the source code for say, Window NT 3.1. However, a lot more actually have good points about bundling (ok) versus abusing a monopoly position. This position (which is what I lean towards myself), can be summed up in this post:

You’re right, because bundling isn’t the problem. Product tying is the problem.
It is much different to say:

“We are giving you product X with the purchase of product Y, whether you want it or not”

than to say:

“We are giving you product X with the purchase of product Y, and not only can you not remove product Y from your machine (as it is an integral part of the operating system), but we have taken special precautions to make sure that only product Y has access to features of product X that make it particularly useful; and by the way, your system provider signed a contract stating that they would not install product Z on this machine, so you’re on your own if you want to install it. And don’t complain to us if it is mysteriously disabled every now and then.”

Linux distributions don’t even compare. Yes, Mozilla is bundled, but if I want to get rid of it and use something else, it’s nothing more than a dpkg—purge.

Bundling is not illegal. Product tying is legal too, except that it is a common technique by which a monopoly position is frequently abused, so it is something that frequently comes up in these cases when you are trying a company for abusing a monopoly position.

Was Microsoft trying to leverage their market share in OSs to increase dominance in the media player market? Sure, but what about the OS X and Quicktime? Doesn’t Apple have a complete lock on Macs? Maybe not the same size, but certainly the same situation.

If any of these companies that brought the complaint had the same position, they’d be trying to do the same damn thing. I do not believe that the EU should have tried to set this as a precedent and play global cop, which is what they are doing by saying

“Today’s decision restores the conditions for fair competition in the markets concerned and establishes clear principles for the future conduct of a company with such a strong dominant position.”

“But,” you say, “this applies just to the European market since that’s what the decision called out.” Sure, but why would Microsoft limit themselves to a single market (even if they don’t want to make the product)? And why would the EU want to limit themselves to making a decision that just affects them?

CNN correspondent Jim Boulden said the EU wants a worldwide remedy and not a case where Microsoft has two operating systems: one for Europe and another for the rest of the world.

The EU commissioners in this case saw an opportunity to stick it to an American company that very much symbolizes their view of America itself. Microsoft didn’t consult its competitors, it saw what they were doing and tried (and is still trying) to stay ahead, much like the USA just did in trying to defend itself against a global threat. Dirty rat bastards. However, I think that MS is too smart and too far ahead of the curve to allow pinhead bureaucrats to kill them. Sure, Media Player will be less tied in, but it is still going to be the default media player installed since most consumers don’t give a damn what their player software is. The people that do care have already switched if they think they know a program which will work better for them (I haven’t, I happen to like Media Player).

In summary: the judgement was too big, there is no way that you can blame this on George Bush, and if you want a different player, get it yourself.

Tags: Technology //