RE: RE my XP Windows got broke in a Hailstorm

Chris,

> I'd say you were way off. First, the JD has been pursuing this for almost
> that long. Second, even today you will find a great number of
> people willing
> to argue that 1. Microsoft is not a monopoly and 2. Microsoft hasn't done
> anything wrong.

1990 - FTC begins investigation of MS, focusing on what they perceive as a
collusive effort by MS & IBM to split the OS market.

1992 - Justice steps into the purchase of Ashton-Tate by Borland, and forces
Borland to license dBase technology to Foxpro as a condition of the
purchase. Huge mistake - MS buys Foxpro 1 month later. Strangely enough,
Justice doesn't interfere at all in that purchase. We all know how it turned
out.

1993 - After *three years* of investigation, they reach a deadlock vote on
whether to proceed.

1993/94? - Antitrust division takes over the case which results in the
first -virtually meaningless-- Consent Decree.

1995 - Justice blocks MS purchase of Intuit.

Same year - decides not to oppose the bundling of MSN with Win95.

Same year - begins investigation that leads to current situation.


References:

http://www.lgu.com/publications/antitrust/9.shtml
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-201-345514-0.html


I point these things out to show that while they have been persuing it for
that long, they've displayed a remarkable lack of understanding with respect
to the technology industry, and they haven't recognized that they need to
change the way they operate to be effective in today's economy. You can't
afford multi-year investigations in this industry.


> Even here with you there has been the question, "Well, what are they doing
> wrong?"

Yes, although only in an attempt to draw out your argument. I've repeatedly
stated that they are a monopoly.


> While we are on the topic, I am curious what Canada has done about the
> situation? I know that the European Union is pursuing Microsoft
> in a similar
> antitrust trial, but I tend to not pay too much attention to stuff outside
> our borders. Is Canada pursuing it?

Good question. I wish I had an answer for you.

We're set up quite differently than the U.S. The government agency that
enforces our federal Competition Act is called the Competition Bureau. The
Competition Act specifically prevents the bureau from publicly commenting on
any complaints they receive, or investigations they're persuing.

While it is widely speculated that MS was/is being investigated, I think we
need to recognize that the Canadian government is largely powerless to do
anything. We have no jurisdiction to enforce a structural remedy, so all
that we could do would be to restrict their trade practices. And with a
population of less than 30 million people across the entire country, we are
hardly a market to be reckoned with. If MS stopped selling in Canada
altogether, it wouldn't even be noticable on their income statement.


> If blame is important, I would suggest that this situation is directly a
> result of the greed and ego of Bill Gates. All of the reports I
> have seen or
> read indicate that this behavior comes directly from him. Much of the
> evidence used in the court cases has been emails from him or
> those following
> his orders.

Yes, but who's been letting him get away with it all these years?



> Well, if you read the findings of fact I think you'll see that the
> Application suite doesn't count as a monopoly. Customers do have a choice
> about their desktop suite. While MS used the leverage of their OS monopoly
> to put their office suite into place, that doesn't necessarily
> mean that the
> suite "controls" any part of the market. In a break up, I think the market
> conditions will give Lotus, Corel, and whoever else opportunity
> to compete.


Are you seriously going to tell me that you don't think Office is a
monopoly? I realize that the findings of fact don't technically recognize it
as such - that was my point. But if you rely on the limited findings of fact
for an understanding of the situation, then you're missing a whole lot of
the big picture.


> I've noticed you mentioning the problem with Bush and this
> administration. I
> have read a lot of such comments not just from you. But I haven't seen any
> evidence at all in the real world to support this sort of conjecture.

> I'd appreciate any reference you have that might show me some
> reason why you
> have this ongoing feeling that because Bush is president the Justice
> Department is pursuing this differently than they have.

This is way too easy:

http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,21321,00.html
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/7564.html
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/pr022701MS.shtml
http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2686922,00.html


Just read the news, and you can't miss it.


John Taylor

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---