Microsoft warned to cut market share

[porchrat]

People have a free choice to use whatever they want.

If people didn't want to use Microsoft products, they could easily switch to a free open source alternative.

Yeah, too bad you've had to pay for that OS already when you purchase your machine.

There isn't exactly a massive choice of new machines out there that don't come with a Microsoft OS.

People should be able to buy a machine without an OS and pick the one they want. Then you get a CD (DVD in the case of Vista) with the OS on it and you install it yourself, none of thise pre-installed rubbish. You hear that HP?!? I'm still waiting for my Vista disc!! Two weeks for delivery my a$$.

Yea but open office does not do the best job, i mean is microsoft here to make money or worry about linux? You could say the same about many companies software that does not work on linux and only windows or mac, surely that is just as bad? Corel for instance does not run on linux why are they not being labeled anti competitive? I am not sure i fully understand why microsoft must make their programs available to run on other platforms when majority of software companies do not.

You know you really don't seem to understand the point here. No one says that MS software needs to run on other operating systems, although that would be great. The problem is that Microsoft products are not standards compliant. Therefore there interoperability with other pieces of software out there is non-existent. They do this to ensure that consumers that want to use an effective alternative can't because everyone else is using the MS software. They have used their dominance in one market (the OS market) to squeeze out companies in other markets.

In the case of MSOffice, once you have run MSOffice, it is not easy to move your documents from it out to another piece of software. Why shouldn't you be allowed to do that in an effortless way? After all it is your data, what right does a company like Microsoft have to create something that attempts to prevent you (or at least places barriers in your way) from extracting your data and moving it to another providers software suite?

You can say that "everyone has a choice" all you want. The point is that people use MSOffice as a result of Microsoft's OS dominance and because everyone else is using MSOffice, those of us who want to choose something different can't because MSOffice is designed to not use proper standards-compliant formats for documents, spreadsheets etc. that all the other software suites out there use. By all means let MS products use there own MS formats, but why can't they support standards as well? Other suites don't seem to have a problem doing this.

 

[Abe]

Yes, let's grant for moment that Microsoft was in breach of (some highly tendentious interpretations of) competition law in the USA and EU. That is something very different from being wrong or unethical or immoral. You can use the world 'illegal', but I will to my dying day maintain that there was nothing immoral or unethical in what we did.

That depends on whose point of view you are talking about. Obviously MS were doing what was morally correct in the eyes of their shareholders. Here are some examples of MS's morals gone awry:

MS and Stac Electronics - Basically MS released compression software with MS DOS 6 after having looked at Stac Electronics' code.

MS DOS 5 and DR DOS - MS announced that they were due to release a new version of MS DOS shortly after the release of DR DOS 5.0. This was only released the following year and the features mirrored those of DR DOS 5.0. The same happened with DR DOS 6.0. To make matters worse, the Windows 3.1 actually refused to run under DR DOS despite their being no valid technical reason for this. MS just forced Windows 3.1 to give an error when DR DOS was detected.

I can go on matters such as their licensing with distributors and their file format restrictions etc but that would be pointless if you fail to see the problem with company abusing their dominance in one area to obtain a monopoly in another. Take a look at the Rockefeller and Standard Oil to see the damage that these things can do to the free market.

 

[Abe]

People have a free choice to use whatever they want.

If people didn't want to use Microsoft products, they could easily switch to a free open source alternative.

Home users can but businesses have no choice. They have to use MS Office products because MS have restrictive licenses on their file formats which prevent other companies from creating 100% compatible Office suites.

 

[Tassidar]

Yes, let's grant for moment that Microsoft was in breach of (some highly tendentious interpretations of) competition law in the USA and EU. That is something very different from being wrong or unethical or immoral. You can use the world 'illegal', but I will to my dying day maintain that there was nothing immoral or unethical in what we did. On the contrary, it was good and moral and ethical, almost to a fault. Aggressive, yes - our shareholders and partners expect nothing less, and rightly so. To the best of my knowledge, hand on heart, I have never seen or even heard of the slightest whiff of unethical or morally questionable behaviour inside Microsoft. If anything, MS was over-scrupulous in every aspect of its business ... there is only one ethically questionable case I know of, and I was involved first-hand: I was once asked to fire an employee for internally forwarding an email with a slightly off-colour joke (I refused and Redmond went over my head and fired him anyway, and that was unjust in my view). For the record, I was part of Microsoft's 'conspiracy' to dominant marketshare in several markets; worse, I actually engineered and drove that very aggressively, including in SA in the early and mid '90s when we outmarketed and out-implemented WordPerfect, Lotus, Ashton Tate and others, who had grown fat and complacent.

I have said it many times on MyBB and elsewhere: people use the word 'force' in this context in a very equivocal way, that bears no relation to the normal understanding of that term. And yes, the US DoJ/court findings and EU rulings are morally wrong, profoundly so ... in the same way that hundreds of laws on statute books might well criminalise certain activities that are in fact morally neutral or even good. It's important to draw that distinction, otherwise you fall into legal positivism and lose sight of real morality and ethics. As happened in SA, for example. Many things under apartheid were (and still are) illegal that are also not immoral or unethical. And in case you think I equivocate or play both sides in a selective morality, I have spent time in prison (in solitary confinement) for opposing apartheid laws and defending people who were criminalised by unjust or immoral laws. What I did might well have been illegal (then). But in my books it was not immoral, unethical, wrong, or unjust. Indeed, a larger and higher standard of morality and justice required it. I mention this only to illustrate the point that illegal is NOT the same as immoral or unethical ... there are numerous unjust and immoral laws in almost all countries. Of course you'll never believe it, but in my experience Microsoft in its business dealings is one of the most moral and ethical companies I've ever seen, and I've seen it from the inside for many, many years (I 'retired' 12 years ago).

What moral or ethical rule requires you to pass your product and business secrets to your competitors?
What moral law requires that you NOT include a browser or media player in your product?
What mora applies to you but not to another?
What moral has two different standards, depending on your size?

Ok, lets look at a specific example, and then question whether the action is legal and / or moral.

Case

At one point, Boies asked Schmalensee whether he thought that Microsoft's practice of penalising companies which ship PCs without Windows was anti-competitive. "Absolutely not," Schmalensee said, adding that the move prevents piracy by discouraging companies from selling computers without an operating system.

Boies then asked Schmalensee if he thought the Microsoft's per-processor license fee -- which required computer makers to pay for Windows on a machine whether they shipped the OS or not -- had anticompetitive consequences. The fees -- deemed illegal by a federal judge in the early 1990s -- led to a 1995 consent decree between Microsoft and the government. The decree specifically required Microsoft to stop its "anticompetitive licensing practices."

But Schmalensee said the practice was not anticompetitive, and again cited piracy concerns.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,2072407,00.htm
Also quoted in Brussels document earlier in the thread.

In this instance, MS is charging for a product regardless of whether or not it is bought.

Let's look at the ethics: I'm am being forced to buy something that I don't want. Surely, this violates the "Freedom of choice" principle. Freedom is surely regarded as one of the fundamental rights, and taking away freedom can surely therefore be considered unethical.

Secondly, let's look at the legality. The DOJ decreed that it was illegal. Before that, might have been considered as legal (I'm no expert in US law, but it violates the concept of a contract, where both parties have to bring something to the table).

In this instance, I find it hard to see how the action by MS could be considered either ethical or legal.

This is one such action, but please feel free to read the "Brussels" document, and defend the actions of MS on each and every case mentioned. I would really be interested to see what defense you can offer.

 

[Arthur]

That depends on whose point of view you are talking about. Obviously MS were doing what was morally correct in the eyes of their shareholders. Here are some examples of MS's morals gone awry:

MS and Stac Electronics - Basically MS released compression software with MS DOS 6 after having looked at Stac Electronics' code.

Glad you bring up Stac. No funny morals here whatsoever! Stacker was probably best-of-breed compression software at that time. When it was decided to include compression in MS-DOS 6, MS approached Stac to licence their technology, and there were protracted negotiations. How could MS possibly arrive at the desire to licence Stacker other than by looking carefully at it and all the various technology options out there. MSFT fully recognised Stac's patents and its IP title, from the very start - thought it certainly didn't recognise a subsequent claim by Stac that its patent covered ALL compression technology on PC drives (which other vendors also opposed). This 'looking at code' is normal and perfectly ethical business practice an almost any industry. Stac was not a competitor (and even if it were, there's is nothing wrong with looking at their technology - in fact it would be a dereliction of duty of you didn't). During the licensing negotiations, both agreed that MS-DOS development would proceed with Stacker code (both had an interest in that happening). Later, after first betas appeared, licensing negotiations broke down (Stac got too greedy, in truth, as a key shareholder years later admitted), MS had to cancel the Stacker code and licence from another party, which it did with DoubleSpace. Stacker sued. The court found that MSFT had NOT wilfully infringed on Stac patents but that there was a technical breach, which was appealed by MSFT and several other companies (who were also then in breach of that interpretation of the patent; which a subsequent court in any case overtuned). In fact, the court found that Stac had wilfully and illegally misappropriated MSFT technology, and awarded MSFT damages of $13m against Stac.

So, 'looking at the code' was part of the deal. It's what Stac wanted and approved of. It happened with their permission and knowledge. It was only after the betas were released that negotiations broke down for other reasons, and so the code was pulled. Where's the ethical problem here?

MS DOS 5 and DR DOS - MS announced that they were due to release a new version of MS DOS shortly after the release of DR DOS 5.0. This was only released the following year and the features mirrored those of DR DOS 5.0. The same happened with DR DOS 6.0. To make matters worse, the Windows 3.1 actually refused to run under DR DOS despite their being no valid technical reason for this. MS just forced Windows 3.1 to give an error when DR DOS was detected.

So? Is Linux or MacOS willfully unethical because they are designed NOT to run Windows software natively? What possble ethical rule requires that you support your competitors, and at your own cost? Do you?

I can go on matters such as their licensing with distributors and their file format restrictions etc

So? Whose file format is it? Please get a bit more specific, because innuendo just perpetuates the myths and lies. I have personally negotiated and signed many distribution agreements for MSFT. What is even slightly questionable or differs from what any and every other significant software vendor has? Wanna see a real restrictive distribution agreement take a look at Apple Computer Inc (but, heck, it's their business, so there's nothing unethical about it, just silly business).

 

[Arthur]

Ok, lets look at a specific example, and then question whether the action is legal and / or moral.

Case

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,2072407,00.htm
Also quoted in Brussels document earlier in the thread.

In this instance, MS is charging for a product regardless of whether or not it is bought.

Let's look at the ethics: I'm am being forced to buy something that I don't want. Surely, this violates the "Freedom of choice" principle. Freedom is surely regarded as one of the fundamental rights, and taking away freedom can surely therefore be considered unethical.

Secondly, let's look at the legality. The DOJ decreed that it was illegal. Before that, might have been considered as legal (I'm no expert in US law, but it violates the concept of a contract, where both parties have to bring something to the table).

In this instance, I find it hard to see how the action by MS could be considered either ethical or legal.

This is one such action, but please feel free to read the "Brussels" document, and defend the actions of MS on each and every case mentioned. I would really be interested to see what defense you can offer.

Look, contract negotiations can be very complex. Given the nature of software, one of the most critical issues is verifiability of the number of copies made. Yes, you can just take their word (and in many cases we did), but certain vendors were, er, somewhat less than 100% trustworthy, especially when we had plenty of direct evidence of previous abuse and dishonesty. When you are delivering to your customer the very substance of your business, you want verifiablity that there won't be abuse (especially when there is strong evidence of widescale abuse, especially in certain geographies). That is reasonable - the question is how do you actually accomplish this? When vendors are unable or unwilling to provide independent verification of the number of software licences they actually ship, MSFT (and ANY software vendor) understandably gets very nervous. It is very easy to find out how many CPUs or mobos or systems an aggregator/IHV moves (from audited company reports or from their suppliers). In certain cases, especially with Far East IHVs, the issue of piracy was, er, significant, so MS proposed and negotiated a per-CPU deal with some though not all IHVs. Though this has never been brought up in court, MSFT also had copious evidence of large scale piracy (illegal manufacture and distribution) of certain MSFT code by 'affiliated' operations to certain Far East IHVs. Whichever way you look at it, even this sort of licensing agreement is not unethical, especially when you consider the number of licences involved and the percentage of systems actually licensed (over 99% in all cases cited in various courts and inquisitions). I have personally put the match to $millions of illegally manufactured software.

 

[Tassidar]

So? Is Linux or MacOS willfully unethical because they are designed NOT to run Windows software natively? What possble ethical rule requires that you support your competitors, and at your own cost? Do you?

Here the question is one of intent.
Suppose someone breaks into my house and attacks me, and I kill him. My intent here was self-defence.

However, suppose I break into someones house and kill the person, my intent would have been murder.

The outcome is the same, I have killed someone, the ethical connotations very different.

In this case, MS's intent was to break previous compatibility to enforce a monopoly. Windows worked with DrDOS initially, then compatibility was dropped.

MS was breaking faith with DRDOS, by initially having worked with them, and the reneging. That is why it is unethical.

Incidentally, Linux has gone out of its way to be compatible with Windows, so much so that you can even run Ubuntu inside of Windows. http://lifehacker.com/5195999/portable-ubuntu-runs-ubuntu-inside-windows

So? Whose file format is it? Please get a bit more specific, because innuendo just perpetuates the myths and lies. I have personally negotiated and signed many distribution agreements for MSFT. What is even slightly questionable or differs from what any and every other significant software vendor has? Wanna see a real restrictive distribution agreement take a look at Apple Computer Inc (but, heck, it's their business, so there's nothing unethical about it, just silly business).

Stick to the point. Apple has nothing to do with the argument, and you are in effect creating a straw man.

 

[killadoob]

No tassidar arthur has it quite correct, why do mac applications and linux applications not work on windows?

Why is mac only allowed on mac pc's? Why don't they make it compatible with all computers? Mac's are flippin expensive compared to desktop and use intel now so why are they being like that? They are forcing people to buy mac computers for the OS so what is the difference if i may ask?

That is bad business. If OSX ran on normal desktops 100% apple would not sell as many systems as they do, they are protecting that by making OSX incompatible with normal desktops and laptops. I don't see anyone saying anything about this.

No apple has everything to do with this argument because microsoft are doing exactly what apple is doing but nothing happens to apple. Apple could support all the hardware windows does but if they did that i can bet you my salary their expensive machines would not sell as people would put it on their much cheaper desktops.

 

[adrianx]

Once again, poor little Microsoft. They're just trying to make an honest living...

I firmly believe that computer technology should have been more advanced by now. Microsoft kills innovation by killing anyone that provides better solutions than the ones they offer. That's where their own "embrace, extend extinguish" philosophy comes in.

 

[Tassidar]

Look, contract negotiations can be very complex. Given the nature of software, one of the most critical issues is verifiability of the number of copies made. Yes, you can just take their word (and in many cases we did), but certain vendors were, er, somewhat less than 100% trustworthy, especially when we had plenty of direct evidence of previous abuse and dishonesty. When you are delivering to your customer the very substance of your business, you want verifiablity that there won't be abuse (especially when there is strong evidence of widescale abuse, especially in certain geographies). That is reasonable - the question is how do you actually accomplish this? When vendors are unable or unwilling to provide independent verification of the number of software licences they actually ship, MSFT (and ANY software vendor) understandably gets very nervous. It is very easy to find out how many CPUs or mobos or systems an aggregator/IHV moves (from audited company reports or from their suppliers). In certain cases, especially with Far East IHVs, the issue of piracy was, er, significant, so MS proposed and negotiated a per-CPU deal with some though not all IHVs. Though this has never been brought up in court, MSFT also had copious evidence of large scale piracy (illegal manufacture and distribution) of certain MSFT code by 'affiliated' operations to certain Far East IHVs. Whichever way you look at it, even this sort of licensing agreement is not unethical, especially when you consider the number of licences involved and the percentage of systems actually licensed (over 99% in all cases cited in various courts and inquisitions). I have personally put the match to $millions of illegally manufactured software.

Summarised, your argument seems to be that because others behave unethically, we are allowed to behave unethically. You know damn well that that argument holds no water (two wrongs don't make a right).

You then stated that it is not unethical without providing any logical argument whatsoever.

 

[Tassidar]

No tassidar arthur has it quite correct, why do mac applications and linux applications not work on windows?

Why is mac only allowed on mac pc's? Why don't they make it compatible with all computers? Mac's are flippin expensive compared to desktop and use intel now so why are they being like that? They are forcing people to buy mac computers for the OS so what is the difference if i may ask?

That is bad business. If OSX ran on normal desktops 100% apple would not sell as many systems as they do, they are protecting that by making OSX incapability with normal desktop and laptops. I don't see anyone saying anything about this.

No apple has everything to do with this argument because microsoft are doing exactly what apple is doing but nothing happens to apple.

Killadoob, the scope of this argument is not Apple. I know little about Apple nor its anti-competitive practices, but agree wholeheartedly, that if it engages in anti-competitive practices it should be bought to task. However, that doesn't excuse MS.

As pointed out earliers, Linux has gone out of its way to be compatible with Windows, and you will find that most of the major software that runs on Linux works on Windows (FF; Thunderbird; Evolution (not sure how good); OpenOffice etc...)

Ubuntu portable even runs inside Windows allowing you to run your Windows and Linux apps side by side.

The argument your presenting is the typical "Its not fair, why I am I being punished" bought forward by schoolkids. While I agree the principle of fairness should apply, it doesn't excuse you if you break the rules.

 

[porchrat]

Look, contract negotiations can be very complex. Given the nature of software, one of the most critical issues is verifiability of the number of copies made. Yes, you can just take their word (and in many cases we did), but certain vendors were, er, somewhat less than 100% trustworthy, especially when we had plenty of direct evidence of previous abuse and dishonesty. When you are delivering to your customer the very substance of your business, you want verifiablity that there won't be abuse (especially when there is strong evidence of widescale abuse, especially in certain geographies). That is reasonable - the question is how do you actually accomplish this? When vendors are unable or unwilling to provide independent verification of the number of software licences they actually ship, MSFT (and ANY software vendor) understandably gets very nervous. It is very easy to find out how many CPUs or mobos or systems an aggregator/IHV moves (from audited company reports or from their suppliers). In certain cases, especially with Far East IHVs, the issue of piracy was, er, significant, so MS proposed and negotiated a per-CPU deal with some though not all IHVs. Though this has never been brought up in court, MSFT also had copious evidence of large scale piracy (illegal manufacture and distribution) of certain MSFT code by 'affiliated' operations to certain Far East IHVs. Whichever way you look at it, even this sort of licensing agreement is not unethical, especially when you consider the number of licences involved and the percentage of systems actually licensed (over 99% in all cases cited in various courts and inquisitions). I have personally put the match to $millions of illegally manufactured software.

I'm sorry, but that is not a viable defense.

Plain and simple, you cannot charge someone for something they didn't ship. It isn't complicated at all.

Unless you are saying that it is OK to charge someone for something they didn't ship...is that what you are saying? If so I need to have a talk with those OEMs because I need to be reimbursed for my little java calculator that they definitely didn't ship.

If OSX ran on normal desktops 100% apple would not sell as many systems as they do, they are protecting that by making OSX incompatible with normal desktops and laptops. I don't see anyone saying anything about this.

No apple has everything to do with this argument because microsoft are doing exactly what apple is doing but nothing happens to apple. Apple could support all the hardware windows does but if they did that i can bet you my salary their expensive machines would not sell as people would put it on their much cheaper desktops.

Also I feel I need to point out that Apple does not have an OS monopoly. The fines Microsoft has incurred, and this subsequent discussion, are regarding a monopoly abusing it's dominant position in one market to destroy competition in other markets. Once again you have missed the point.

No tassidar arthur has it quite correct, why do mac applications and linux applications not work on windows?

Why do you keep missing the point? Is missing the point like oxygen to you? Do you need it to stay alive?
The fact that Microsoft has yet to create an environment in Windows that allows it to run Linux and mac programs within it is Microsoft's fault, not Linux or Apple's. Linux has Wine to run Windows applications, it has gone to great lengths to attempt to make software designed for Windows to run on it, Microsoft has not reciprocated.

 

[killadoob]

Yes but the difference is linux does not make much money like apple or microsoft so there is no need to try and protect anything.

Apple need OSX too only run on desktop pc's and microsoft need to make sure open office is not compatible with microsoft office because then they get no income because open office is free. It's about protecting your business and making sure you make money. Giving stuff away free is pointless, then we might as well get cars and house at cost because why should car manufacturers turn a profit and rip us off? In fact why not make every company in the world produce items and make no money. If you have a business you protect your income in an manner i say. If you have to use under hand tactics so be it, at the end of day money is all that matters. Does the EU think microsoft care about a 500m fine? they make that up in next to no time at all. Linux is free and nobody really turns a profit, this is not how the world operates and i can bet if linux cost money it would not exist, the only reason linux has done so well is because its free. While i think having free stuff is great i understand the world revolves around money and not giving stuff away for free, if you have to step on a few toes then so be it. If linux made money or charged the OS would be far more advanced i feel and may actually become a major player in the OS wars. You think apple is going to give it's OS away for free?

 

[Arthur]

Summarised, your argument seems to be that because others behave unethically, we are allowed to behave unethically. You know damn well that that argument holds no water (two wrongs don't make a right).

You then stated that it is not unethical without providing any logical argument whatsoever.

I am not saying that. I am saying there is nothing per se unethical about a per CPU licensing agreement. The rest is background.

Here's a brief simplified summary of how it goes - enough to give you an idea that there's no evil (these are random numbers for illustration only):

IHV: "We want to licence Windows on our PCs over the next two years. How much will that cost?"
MSFT: "Great. How many licences? Price depends on volume."
IHV: "Well, it depends. Our business plan is manufacture 1,352,455 PCs, but we'll have to see how sales actually go. It could be up to 20% more or 20% less. We'd like to be flexible and responsive to market demand."
MSFT: "OK, the price depends on volume. For Windows on 1,352,455 machines is $8.43 per machine. Payable quarterly. Do you plan to sell Windows on all you PCs?"
IHV: "Glad you raised that. Er, actually, no. Some PCs go out naked, without an OS."
MSFT: "How many about?"
IHV: "Well, it's hard to say. It depends. But 98% will go with Windows, but it might vary."
MSFT: "About how many more or less, because that affects the price."
IHV: "Well, let's say about 60,000."
MSFT: "OK, that means you want to licence only say 1,290,000 system, give or take 20% or 25%, depending. That's kinda really kinda hard to pin down, and we understand. Like in any other business, a higher upfront volume commitment gets you a better discount. For that qty, the price is $8.75 per licence; once you hit 1.3m the price for subsequent licences is $8.52 and after 1.375m it's $8.49 per licence... here's the sliding scale. But we need to audit what you actually ship, because you have our crown jewels in your hand. Monthly reports, spot checks, and so on - usual stuff."
IHV: "Of course we understand - we'd do the same. But it's a lot of admin, extra staff, etc. Isn't here an easier way we can peg a price so we can plan our costings down to the penny?"
MSFT: "Well, let's say you commit now to 1.3m licences at $8.43 per licence, with $8.41 for next 100K, and $8.40 for the following 100K..."
IHV: (tap tap on calculator) "What, the price for 1.5m licences?"
MSFT: (tap tap) "$8.37 per lic, or $12,555,000. For each subsequent licence, ..."
IHV: "Great. We'll take that. We know what we're in for."
MSFT: "But what about your naked machines?"
IHV: "That's fine. We don't know how many it'll be. In any case, it's cheaper for us to commit to the 100% licence volume and simply carry the naked machines, which are a tiny percentage. We'll get the bulk discount on that committed volume.
MSFT: "So you'll agree to licence 100% of your machines?"
IHV: "Yup. It's far easier to plan that way. Besides, it means we get a lower price per licence on a higher committed volume, and that improves profitablity on early sales."
MSFT: "Cool. Sign here."
IHV: Places X on paper.

Yes, it does mean the unknown number of named machines are contractually covered and paid for. But given the uncertainties of the future and the desire to pin down committed volumes to get the best price today, this is not wrong, nor unethical. AND THE IHV AGREES - it makes it easier for them, too. It's widely done in many industries, not just software.

As to freezing out DR-DOS. What possible ethical or moral obligation would bind Microsoft to ensuring Windows runs on DR-DOS or indeed anything, even own MS-DOS? It might be imprudent from a business perspective, but whence the ethical obligation? And if there is such, please account for the absence of that obligation on other vendors.

Regarding monopolies.
a) As I've stated at length elsewhere, there is a real moral distinction between coervice (ie enforced by law) monopolies and those that arise in an open and free market. MS does not have exclusive ownership of a physical resource, say, such as oil wells, or bauxite mines. It's not monopolies that are bad, it's coercive state-enforced and state-protected monopolies that are bad.
b) MSFT in any case is not a monopoly by any regular definition. There are alternatives, and many of them free.
c) Your right to a free choice does not extend to an obligation on others to provide you with the options. If you buy a BMW chassis you cannot choose to get a Merc engine with it - they require that you get theirs because it's bundled with the chassis.

 

[Tassidar]

Yes but the difference is linux does not make much money like apple or microsoft so there is no need to try and protect anything.

Apple need OSX too only run on desktop pc's and microsoft need to make sure open office is not compatible with microsoft office because then they get no income because open office is free. It's about protecting your business and making sure you make money. Giving stuff away free is pointless, then we might as well get cars and house at cost because why should car manufacturers turn a profit and rip us off? In fact why not make every company in the world produce items and make no money. If you have a business you protect your income in an manner i say. If you have to use under hand tactics so be it, at the end of day money is all that matters. Does the EU think microsoft care about a 500m fine? they make that up in next to no time at all. Linux is free and nobody really turns a profit, this is not how the world operates and i can bet if linux cost money it would not exist, the only reason linux has done so well is because its free. While i think having free stuff is great i understand the world revolves around money and not giving stuff away for free, if you have to step on a few toes then so be it. If linux made money or charged the OS would be far more advanced i feel and may actually become a major player in the OS wars. You think apple is going to give it's OS away for free?

So what you're saying is that car salesman should be allowed to lie about the specs and the service history of the car? That consumers have no rights at all? Be very careful about what you are saying here, it might come back to bite you.

Incidentally, the Linux operating system is every bit as advanced as Windows, and in some areas more advanced. If it lags in an area (eg. Hardware compatiblity) attempts are being made all the time to bridge this.

Have you ever run Linux? Have you seen Compiz Fusion running on a desktop? Have you experienced the power of the Linux shell?

Oh, and Vista was so advanced that it required a supercomputer to run.

 

[porchrat]

Regarding monoppolies.
a) As I've stated at length elsewhere, there is a real moral distinction between coervice (ie enforced by law) monopolies and those that arise in an open and free market. MS does not have exclusive ownership of a physical resource, say, such as oil wells, or bauxite mines. It's not monopolies that are bad, it's coercive state-enforced and state-protected monopolies that are bad.
b) MSFT in any case is not a monopoly by any regular definition. There are alternatives, and many of them free.
c) Your right to a free choice does not extend to an obligation on others to provide you with the options. If you buy a BMW chassis you cannot choose to get a Merc engine with it - they require that you get theirs because it's bundled with the chassis.

I buy a computer, regardless of whether I get it shipped with an MS operating system or not, Microsoft still gets paid by the OEM, nice.

Yes but the difference is linux does not make much money like apple or microsoft so there is no need to try and protect anything.

Apple need OSX too only run on desktop pc's and microsoft need to make sure open office is not compatible with microsoft office because then they get no income because open office is free. It's about protecting your business and making sure you make money. Giving stuff away free is pointless, then we might as well get cars and house at cost because why should car manufacturers turn a profit and rip us off? In fact why not make every company in the world produce items and make no money. If you have a business you protect your income in an manner i say. If you have to use under hand tactics so be it, at the end of day money is all that matters. Does the EU think microsoft care about a 500m fine? they make that up in next to no time at all. Linux is free and nobody really turns a profit, this is not how the world operates and i can bet if linux cost money it would not exist, the only reason linux has done so well is because its free. While i think having free stuff is great i understand the world revolves around money and not giving stuff away for free, if you have to step on a few toes then so be it. If linux made money or charged the OS would be far more advanced i feel and may actually become a major player in the OS wars. You think apple is going to give it's OS away for free?

So basically killdoob what you are saying is that Microsoft uses their monopolistic position to undermine other companies in other markets. So basically you are saying that Microsoft deserves the fine, has broken the law and is guilty of antitrust? Well done, but I thought you were supporting Microsoft in this discussion?

 

[Tassidar]

I am not saying that. I am saying there is nothing per se unethical about a per CPU licensing agreement. The rest is background.

As to freezing out DR-DOS. What possible ethical or moral obligation would bind Microsoft to ensuring Windows runs on DR-DOS or indeed anything, even own MS-DOS? It might be imprudent from a business perspective, but whence the ethical obligation? And if there is such, please account for the absence of that obligation on other vendors.

Regarding monoppolies.
a) As I've stated at length elsewhere, there is a real moral distinction between coervice (ie enforced by law) monopolies and those that arise in an open and free market. MS does not have exclusive ownership of a physical resource, say, such as oil wells, or bauxite mines. It's not monopolies that are bad, it's coercive state-enforced and state-protected monopolies that are bad.
b) MSFT in any case is not a monopoly by any regular definition. There are alternatives, and many of them free.
c) Your right to a free choice does not extend to an obligation on others to provide you with the options. If you buy a BMW chassis you cannot choose to get a Merc engine with it - they require that you get theirs because it's bundled with the chassis.

A per CPU licensing agreement charges you for something even if you don't use it and don't want it. How can that possibly be unethical?

Regarding DrDos, deliberately embracing a technology and then deliberately breaking it to ensure a monopoly is unethical. Why? It is misleading and costly to the consumer. Especially, if part of you strategy is to spread FUD about the reliability of competitor OSs.

I'm sure the issue of the per-cpu-licenses puts MS firmly in the category of a coercive monopoly. After all, distributors are being coerced into using Windows. That along, with discriminatory pricing applied to OEMS who choose to offer other operating systems as well as MS, is highly coercive.

 

[porchrat]

I am not saying that. I am saying there is nothing per se unethical about a per CPU licensing agreement.

I have just realised something. You have never used my java calculator either! By your logic you owe me money!

All major credit cards accepted.

 

[Arthur]

I have just realised something. You have never used my java calculator either! By your logic you owe me money!

All major credit cards accepted.

Huh?

No end user pays for a licence they didn't receive.

 

[Arthur]

A per CPU licensing agreement charges you for something even if you don't use it and don't want it. How can that possibly be unethical?

No it does not. No end user pays for a licence they don't get. That's insane (or just plain stoopid).

Regarding DrDos, deliberately embracing a technology and then deliberately breaking it to ensure a monopoly is unethical. Why? It is misleading and costly to the consumer. Especially, if part of you strategy is to spread FUD about the reliability of competitor OSs.

You need to be a bit more granular about what "embrace" means in this context. Who was mislead? By whom?

I'm sure the issue of the per-cpu-licenses puts MS firmly in the category of a coercive monopoly. After all, distributors are being coerced into using Windows. That along, with discriminatory pricing applied to OEMS who choose to offer other operating systems as well as MS, is highly coercive.

No it does not. IHVs get a better and certain price per licence, and lower admin costs. This improves their profitability, otherwise they'd never agree. Or do you really think the MS sales rep pitches up with bodyguards and a violin case? In which case you've seen too many movies.