MS loses EU anti-trust appeal

[Darth Wong]

Removability is a critical aspect of the legal question. Bundling, in and of itself, needn't necessarily be malicious but forced integration with insurmountable barriers to removal, especially in a market-dominating product, is a clearly intended to provide an advantage to the bundled product by leveraging the installed base of the market-leading product. If the integration can be shown to be gratuitous and for the sole purpose of suppressing competition in the bundled-product market, as it was in United States vs Microsoft, then the organization is at fault.

You are talking about the "vertical integration" argument. For this argument to fly, you need to show that the products are of a sufficiently distinct nature that one can legitimately be said to be leveraging strength in one market to enhance its position in another.

In other words, you have to show that an OS and the web browser are sufficiently distinct kinds of products to be considered separate markets. And I don't see how you can really make that argument. In many respects, Netscape was working on a time limit when they made that accusation in the 1990s because people increasingly view the web browser as a basic component. Sure, it's one that you can upgrade, but the idea of shipping an OS which is actually incapable of viewing webpages without add-on software would strike most people as completely absurd.

The scandal of IE was always the way it attempted to break web standards and subvert the web to become a Microsoft product. In other words, the interoperability argument, which is completely distinct from the integration argument. The fact that Windows came with a built-in web browser is just not something that strikes me as a reasonable basis of attack.

If I might make my own HiFi analogy, the Microsoft equipment rack is one with every slot empty except for a CD player welded into the bottom. You are free to buy your own CD player (which won't explode through regular use), but you can't remove the Microsoft one. What's worse is that things don't have to be that way at all, since IE and WMA are computer applications, not electronic equipment.

Ummm, there are a shitload of audio products on the market with a built-in CD player that is impossible to remove.

[Starglider]

Car analogies have a bad reputation in computing (well, at least on Slashdot ) for a reason; they usually suck.

The car stereo argument worked better when stereos used to come in a standard form factor so that you could swap out the shitty default one for a decent one. These days a fairly decent one is usually integrated into the dashboard controls to the extent that you have to be a car audio enthusiast with a lot of time and money to mod it. Either way though it's still a bad analogy because on modern computers there is almost no penalty for having additional software installed (certainly not additional web browsers). If you can set Firefox or whatever as the default browser when following any sort of HTML link, which Windows is usually pretty good about, then you've effectively replaced IE. There's no reason to actually try and pull it out of the operating system. AFAIK this was true of WMP right up until the point that all this trusted computing bullshit started to be implemented; it may not be true in the near future, but hardware DRM is a different issue (though it can certainly support monopolistic practices, which is just one more strike against it).

The other reason the car analogy sucks is that there is no monopoly in cars, far from it in fact. Bundling gadgets isn't a big deal because if it actually provided an inferior deal for the consumer, the companies that did it would find their profits plumetting and quickly stop doing it. The Windows/Office stranglehold means that there is effectively no escape from Microsoft's shitty products and extortionate licenses for most consumers (though Linux and various solutions that run on it are very slowly making progress on that, and Apple is viable for people who only need to run a very narrow set of applications, not including games).

[Xon]

You can't just take an API from Windows or Office or what have you and look at it, then think of a way of integrating a third party program better with it like you could with something under the GNU system.

What the FUCK?

Did you manage to completely miss my post. That is exactly what I'm doing when writing a Windows Shell extension at work.

[Admiral Valdemar]

What the FUCK?

Did you manage to completely miss my post. That is exactly what I'm doing when writing a Windows Shell extension at work.

Which changes MS' actions over the years how exactly? Or are they in court because they like the atmosphere?

[Darth Wong]

What the FUCK?

Did you manage to completely miss my post. That is exactly what I'm doing when writing a Windows Shell extension at work.

Which changes MS' actions over the years how exactly? Or are they in court because they like the atmosphere?

He seems to be pointing out that Microsoft is partially open, enough for people to do certain kinds of work with it. Of course, that's not really enough.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That's what I gathered. If they're changing things to an extent, that's good. I imagine not even MS can hæmorrhage that much cash for a decade and not learn something from it.

Let me know when they're acceptably transparent.

[Darth Wong]

That's what I gathered. If they're changing things to an extent, that's good. I imagine not even MS can hæmorrhage that much cash for a decade and not learn something from it.

Let me know when they're acceptably transparent.

Part of the problem stems from traditional Microsoft incompetence and disregard for code quality. Let's suppose you have a word processor and you create an in-house specification for the document file format. But let us further suppose that your incompetent coders fuck up this specification, and then you release the product anyway. Any quirks in the rendering of your file format mean that files created with this word processor will not be entirely interoperable with files created by a third-party word processor which meets your in-house specification perfectly. So effectively, those quirks have become an undocumented part of your in-house spec, and the original spec is the only thing you are willing to release to the public. That's the kind of shit Microsoft pulls on a regular basis.

[Uraniun235]

That's what I gathered. If they're changing things to an extent, that's good. I imagine not even MS can hæmorrhage that much cash for a decade and not learn something from it.

Let me know when they're acceptably transparent.

Interestingly, there are APIs that even internal Microsoft developers working on Windows itself are not allowe to call.

"Yeah, it's not like Microsoft to have, and/or use undocumented APIs now, is it? Especially for internal use."

APIs at MS come in 3 flavors: public, MS internal, and component internal. "Undocumented" APIs that are called across Windows components still require a contract (not in the legal sense) between teams, so that team A will continue supporting every MS-internal API that team B is using, or else will work with team B directly when making a breaking change to an API. This is just a common-sense reality in a large organization like Windows.

Think of it like this: my wife has the ability to remove the fourth stair from my staircase, but if she did it without telling me I would break my neck some night while walking down the stairs. Just because a team has the technical capability to call another team's private APIs doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[Xon]

Which changes MS' actions over the years how exactly? Or are they in court because they like the atmosphere?

And you completely miss my point.

Yes, increased transparency and documentation is a damn good thing and I dont dispute that.

But in the comercial world, 3rd party apps tightly integrate with Microsoft tools. Access to sourcecode like with the GNU tools is often worthless, it is access to the developer who wrote that code which is the damn important part.

Really, if the stuff implements open or closed standards it really doesnt damn well matter. Since Microsoft desktop is over 98% of the market and MS servers are int the double digit range these days, it is Microsoft's implementation which you are going to care about.

[Xisiqomelir]

Groklaw interview transcript with some of the Commission's expert witnesses (Georg Greve of FSFE, Jeremy Allison and Volker Lendecke of Samba, and Carlo Piana, their lawyer of record in the case). Audio available at the link.

[Darth Wong]

Really, if the stuff implements open or closed standards it really doesnt damn well matter. Since Microsoft desktop is over 98% of the market and MS servers are int the double digit range these days, it is Microsoft's implementation which you are going to care about.

Please clarify for me: are you trying to refute the charge of anti-trust violations and monopolistic practices, or confirm it?