Japan's antitrust regulators continue the monthly tradition of suing the software giant Microsoft. Today Japan accused Microsoft of unfair business practices. Unlike the European Union this lawsuit doesn't carry a heavy fine. According to News.com "Japan's Fair Trade Commission said Microsoft should scrap a provision in its licensing contracts with PC makers that prevents them from filing patent infringement suits if they find Microsoft's Windows software contains features similar to their own technology."
Microsoft on Tuesday received a warning from Japan's antitrust regulators about unfair business practices, but the decision did not carry the heavy fines the software giant was given in Europe.
Japan's Fair Trade Commission said Microsoft should scrap a provision in its licensing contracts with PC makers that prevents them from filing patent infringement suits if they find Microsoft's Windows software contains features similar to their own technology. "There is a high probability that the provision will discourage PC makers from developing their own technology," said Toshihiro Hara, director of the First Special Investigation division at Japan's Fair Trade Commission.
A Microsoft official said the company was implementing a plan to drop the provision in new contracts worldwide, but it was not known whether that would be enough to satisfy the trade watchdog, which raided the offices of Microsoft's Japan unit in February. The ruling is a slap on the wrist compared with the record fine from European regulators and a string of class-action lawsuits in the United States saying Microsoft used its monopoly in the PC operating systems market to overcharge customers for software.
News source: C|Net News.com
Microsoft on Tuesday received a warning from Japan's antitrust regulators about unfair business practices, but the decision did not carry the heavy fines the software giant was given in Europe.
Japan's Fair Trade Commission said Microsoft should scrap a provision in its licensing contracts with PC makers that prevents them from filing patent infringement suits if they find Microsoft's Windows software contains features similar to their own technology. "There is a high probability that the provision will discourage PC makers from developing their own technology," said Toshihiro Hara, director of the First Special Investigation division at Japan's Fair Trade Commission.
A Microsoft official said the company was implementing a plan to drop the provision in new contracts worldwide, but it was not known whether that would be enough to satisfy the trade watchdog, which raided the offices of Microsoft's Japan unit in February. The ruling is a slap on the wrist compared with the record fine from European regulators and a string of class-action lawsuits in the United States saying Microsoft used its monopoly in the PC operating systems market to overcharge customers for software.
News source: C|Net News.com
 |  Agenda |  Planner |
this might explain why some critical security holes take so long to fix.
Also WMP is not one of MS' strong points. It's a very generic sort of wrapper around
the very generic DirectShow ActiveX control. Overflow a buffer in there and you
could well inject code running as LOCALSYSTEM
of course, Windows is "just fine."
Last edited by 962 on 13 Jul 2004 - 19:38
I might suggest that if you don't like Windows or can't afford it, don't buy it and allow the market to decide if Windows is "just fine". No one is making you use it.
Anyway, let's review... these companies signed these contracts willingly, agreeing to the consessions to Microsoft in exchange for a greatly reduced price. In no case has it even been sugested, much less shown, that any of these companies would have been unable to acquire the software without agreeing to the consessions. Albeit, they would have had to pay the same retail price the rest of us are forced to pay, but that's what you pay when you want it without the strings. The only people I see to blame in these cases are the resellers themselves for being doubly greedy, first by wanting to make a huge markup on Microsoft's products, and now the want the same profit without paying the piper.
Anyway, let's review... these companies signed these contracts willingly, agreeing to the consessions to Microsoft in exchange for a greatly reduced price. In no case has it even been sugested, much less shown, that any of these companies would have been unable to acquire the software without agreeing to the consessions. Albeit, they would have had to pay the same retail price the rest of us are forced to pay, but that's what you pay when you want it without the strings. The only people I see to blame in these cases are the resellers themselves for being doubly greedy, first by wanting to make a huge markup on Microsoft's products, and now the want the same profit without paying the piper.
Do you actually think it is that cut and dry? Please read this Link. It should give you most of the facts about the MS monopoly you did not know. I tihnk it explains it all.
I don't mind because I like anime and I like Sony. Except their MP3 players (which doesn't play MP3s at all).
But of course the problem should have been adressed sooner, now the market is close to non-working because of Microsoft dominance. I tried walking into a computer store and asking if I could run one of their machines with a different OS; all I got back was a silly stare and a question of why I would want Windows 2000 or ME when the machine came with Windows XP.
as long as M$ is in charge, IE will be strongly bound to windows, now if only Linux would get even more userfriendly and more software and hardware supported.
dont be afraid, think of a Windows that you can tweak if you wanto, and remove all the bloat you dont need. Think of a reinstall just take 5 minutes, and all your settings and programs dont need to be reinstalled cus they reside in the default d:useros_settings.ini
all but those who require additional libraries, but those can you slip-stream into your WinLux installation ISO.
Allowing Users to "tweak" Windows and remove bloat (not that there is any) from an Operating System would lead to instability, especially since the majority of Windows Users wouldn't know what they were doing.
Not according to MS. "Microsoft replies that it offers Internet Explorer as an integrated part of the Windows 95 operating system and notes that the 1995 settlement only says that consumers shall not be be "force fed" software because of Microsoft's supposed monopoly power. "
I also think that MS should not HAVE to disclose their API's. It's THEIR OS. Yes they can make their stuff work better, it's THEIR operating system. They should have first dibs at writing cool code against it. If Ford comes up with a butt kicking stereo implementation and only puts it in Ford Mustangs... other auto manufacturers or other head unit manufacturers don't come bellyaching that Ford is a monopoly because they didn't tell the head unit manufacturers how to do it too.
Microsoft is an aggressive player in the marketplace. Just look how many comanies are whining or complaining because they aren't up to the challenge. Look at Netscape, what did they do to combat Microsoft's strategy? Not much. Look at RealPlayer. They still have market share because Windows Media Player (WMP) can't play their content and some websites prefer to provide Real Audio content. They're still in the game. Look at Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird. They are offering competitive products and some consumers are using them instead of Microsoft products, as that is their choice.
Where is everyone else? They aren't thinking, they aren't innovating, they aren't in there fighting for market share... they're calling their lawyers.
Consumers have always had their free will to choose. Don't let anyone tell you any different.
No where in that atricle does it show any end customers who where even slightly inconvenienced. Customers have and have always had choices. Most of them have chosen Microsoft willingly. (At no time during Microsoft's history has there been less then two choices in operating systems alone.)
Antitrust laws are created not just to protect consumers, but to keep pushing for innovation and to create competition. And truthfully, during the tranistion to Win 95 and when companies began offering internet access to its employees, most people only knew IE existed. They were not aware of any competition, because OEMs were not allowed to install it onto computers they shipped and keep the pricing they had in place with MS. In turn, they got an inferior and insecure product.
No companies do not have free choice. Companies exist to maximize the return for its shareholders (Business 101). In order to maximize earning, they had to cut deals that stifled choice and innovation.
(Sorry, sarcasm mode off now)
I do find it funny though, everyone keeps talking about freedm of choice on one hand, yet they do not give the consumer enough respect to think that any of them are smart enough download whatever browser replacement they want if they are dis-satisfied with using Internet Explorer.
when linux distro's get as big as microsoft, they to will be stung by the greed bug.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.