Facebook   Twitter    YouTube    RSS Feed    Android App    iPhone and iPad App     BlackBerry App    
Subscribe to Newsletter



Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Damning evidence in the Comes vs Microsoft Case

  1. #1
    Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Up the creek without a GB
    Posts
    4,612

    Default Damning evidence in the Comes vs Microsoft Case

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...91125232420218

    Bill Gates - "I have decided that we should not publish these extensions. We should wait until we have a way to do a high level of integration that will be harder for the likes of Notes, Wordperfect to achieve, and which will give Office a real advantage."
    In this case they have brought up that MS hid the IShellBrowser API's from their competition and gave the Office division a big advantage over the other competition. Who out there keeps defending MS saying that they did nothing wrong?

  2. #2

    Default

    I dont think they did anything wrong. they have a product.
    Is not the point to sell a product that has a advantage over your competitor?
    what everybody is saying is this: booh hooh hoo. they have a better idea and they did not wanna shaarre!!!! thats not fair!!

  3. #3
    Super Grandmaster Madman88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    9,305
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Well. For sure I'm not a big Microsoft fan. But that just sounds like a marketing strategy to me. If CorelDraw chooses to make their format less compatible to other vector based design packages, thats their prerogative.

    Bleh, it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth tho.
    I am 13531

    "Balance is the key to everything, without it we would just keep falling over."

  4. #4
    Super Grandmaster porchrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    I don't know but it smells like lasagna
    Posts
    26,321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsimo View Post
    I dont think they did anything wrong. they have a product.
    Is not the point to sell a product that has a advantage over your competitor?
    what everybody is saying is this: booh hooh hoo. they have a better idea and they did not wanna shaarre!!!! thats not fair!!
    Surely it depends on what you regard as the "product" in this instance?

    The product in this instance is Office, not Windows or it's APIs.

    MS hid the Windows API from these blokes for the purposes of giving Office an edge. Destroying competition by using their dominance in the OS market.

    The API should be something that is shared with anyone wanting to produce a program for the OS. After all one of the main purposes of an OS is to run programs, why should Microsoft get to decide what programs run on Windows and what don't by hiding the APIs from certain developers and giving it to others promptly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Madman88 View Post
    Well. For sure I'm not a big Microsoft fan. But that just sounds like a marketing strategy to me. If CorelDraw chooses to make their format less compatible to other vector based design packages, thats their prerogative.

    Bleh, it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth tho.
    AFAIK they didn't choose to make it less compatible, they weren't given the APIs. Keeping APIs from developers is not a marketing strategy it is just plain anti-competitive.
    Last edited by porchrat; 27-11-2009 at 11:21 AM.
    Delta Motor Corporation of South Africa Opel Monza 160i GSi Car of the Year 1991
    Historical Significance

  5. #5
    Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Up the creek without a GB
    Posts
    4,612

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsimo View Post
    I dont think they did anything wrong. they have a product.
    Is not the point to sell a product that has a advantage over your competitor?
    what everybody is saying is this: booh hooh hoo. they have a better idea and they did not wanna shaarre!!!! thats not fair!!
    The problem is that they held a monopoly in one market and used that monopoly to take over another market. There is a reason why Office costs so much now. Because it can. They charge next to nothing and used the tricks above to take over the Office Suite market and then once they had a monopoly there, they increased their prices. Last I heard (I could be wrong), 50% of MS's profits come from Office.

    The same strategy could be applied to any software market on Windows. It's highly uncompetitive and illegal.

  6. #6

    Default

    The parts of office that make it better is what they are complaining about. its like asking Coke to hand over the formula for the ingredient that makes Coke taste like coke and not like pepsi.
    And i believe that they have the right to make their products work together better. why not? if word perfect wanted a better product they should have increased their R&D budget. it all comes down to being sore loosers.
    MS have a better product and they know it. why is the Linux groups not being sued for integrating everything? or apple for that matter? you buy a mac and you have almost all the programs you need in one. no room for competition. at all.
    what is happening here is that a company is being punished for making one very good product that was very successful. then they took their other product and integrated it into their first successful product.

    i just don`t understand how its uncompetitive to have a better product suite.

  7. #7
    Super Grandmaster porchrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    I don't know but it smells like lasagna
    Posts
    26,321

    Default

    OK we are going with this in stages:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsimo View Post
    The parts of office that make it better is what they are complaining about. its like asking Coke to hand over the formula for the ingredient that makes Coke taste like coke and not like pepsi.
    They are not complaining about Office, they are complaining about not getting the APIs. The APIs are not a part of Office they are a part of Windows.

    The analogy you propose is the equivalent of them asking for Office source code so that they can copy it. That is not what they wanted. All they wanted were the APIs to another separate product called Windows. APIs are something that an OS manufacturer should want to release to developers to encourage them to build software for the platform. Microsoft purposefully released the details of the APIs to the team developing Office and didn't release them to other competitors in the office suite market thereby stifling competition.

    It is closer to a company (that happens to be owned by Coca-Cola) whose business it is to sell aluminum can machines to the world. However the company refuses to sell the machines to Pepsi so that Coke can sell more cans than Pepsi thus giving Coca-Cola an unfair advantage.

    And i believe that they have the right to make their products work together better. why not? if word perfect wanted a better product they should have increased their R&D budget. it all comes down to being sore loosers.
    Yes Microsoft have every right to increase interoperability between two products. However they don't have the right to prevent someone else from getting the tools they require to make their product operate properly within the OS. Their withholding of that information undermines the competition in another product and at the end of the day hurts the consumer.

    MS have a better product and they know it. why is the Linux groups not being sued for integrating everything? or apple for that matter? you buy a mac and you have almost all the programs you need in one. no room for competition. at all.
    AFAIK this is not about integrating software with Windows (I assume you're referring to something akin to IE, this is not the same thing). It is about Microsoft not releasing APIs.

    Apple does not have a monopoly therefore is not subject to these laws. If in the future Apple were to become a monopoly and behaved like they currently do then I would like to believe they would be treated in the same way as Microsoft are.

    As for the Linux community: the Linux community doesn't hide APIs from anyone. It is open source and by definition anyone is free to read the information on the APIs and produce a product that will integrate perfectly with Linux.

    what is happening here is that a company is being punished for making one very good product that was very successful. then they took their other product and integrated it into their first successful product.

    i just don`t understand how its uncompetitive to have a better product suite.
    That isn't what is happening at all. This isn't really about integration it is about preventing others from being able to make their products interoperable with Windows, they are two different things. From your post I get the impression that perhaps you have missed the point. Please don't see this as a personal attack because it isn't, it is just my impression.
    Last edited by porchrat; 27-11-2009 at 04:03 PM.
    Delta Motor Corporation of South Africa Opel Monza 160i GSi Car of the Year 1991
    Historical Significance

  8. #8
    Super Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    28,944

    Default

    Only in to days world is doing business bad....

    Its their product, and their OS - If they don't want x running on it, they should be allowed to do as they please to their product - x can then go find another platform if it chooses.

    I don't have the right to build a bedroom extension onto your house for me to live in - do I?

  9. #9
    Super Grandmaster porchrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    I don't know but it smells like lasagna
    Posts
    26,321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xrapidx View Post
    Only in to days world is doing business bad....

    Its their product, and their OS - If they don't want x running on it, they should be allowed to do as they please to their product - x can then go find another platform if it chooses.

    I don't have the right to build a bedroom extension onto your house for me to live in - do I?
    It is an unfair advantage. The companies should be competing solely on the quality of the product. Not the collusive forces between two products. Otherwise it is like inventing a product that when installed on a system, purposefully sabotages the other product.

    What exactly does the bedroom analogy have to do with this? I really don't get it.
    Last edited by porchrat; 27-11-2009 at 04:14 PM.
    Delta Motor Corporation of South Africa Opel Monza 160i GSi Car of the Year 1991
    Historical Significance

  10. #10
    Super Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    28,944

    Default

    ... wonder how Apple compares with their 'restrictions'

  11. #11
    Super Grandmaster porchrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    I don't know but it smells like lasagna
    Posts
    26,321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xrapidx View Post
    ... wonder how Apple compares with their 'restrictions'
    Unfortunately Apple aren't a monopoly.

    Although now that you mention it I would argue that they are a monopoly with the iPod. They not only make the device, but decide what OS and apps you can run on it as well and completely lock it down from third party hardware producers too. Seems pretty anti-competitive to me.
    Delta Motor Corporation of South Africa Opel Monza 160i GSi Car of the Year 1991
    Historical Significance

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •