From a post I made sometime ago.
With MS there's always more than meets the eye. From the lawsuit against MS in the US:
17. These barriers magnify and reinforce each other because the value of an operating system to a consumer is directly related to two factors: the availability of a variety of high quality applications that run on that system, and the number of users who use that operating system and thus are able to share information and work with the system without additional training. ISVs, in turn, tend to develop applications for operating systems with a large installed base of users, and consumers gravitate towards operating systems with a large base of applications.
18. Microsoft's anticompetitive contracting practices described below significantly increase the already high barriers to entry and expansion facing competitors in the PC operating system market. These practices reduce the likelihood that OEMs will license and promote non-Microsoft PC operating systems, make it more difficult for Microsoft's competitors to persuade ISVs to develop applications for their operating systems, and impede the ability of a non-Microsoft PC operating system to expand its installed base of users.
Microsoft's Exclusionary and Anticompetitive OEM
Licenses Foreclose Access to the OEM Channel by
Microsoft's PC Operating System Competitors
19. In 1980, IBM agreed to license the original version of MS-DOS from Microsoft for IBM's PC, which experienced considerable success. Other OEMs also used MS-DOS in order better to emulate the IBM PC. Microsoft quickly dominated and gained a monopoly in the market for PC operating systems. It then entered into a series of exclusionary and anticompetitive contract terms to maintain its monopoly.
20. Because of Microsoft's monopoly position in the marketplace, OEMs believe that they must offer MS-DOS and Windows to their customers. Profit margins in the computer hardware industry are very thin and OEMs want to obtain MS-DOS and Windows at the lowest possible cost. Microsoft has induced many OEMs to execute anticompetitive "per processor" contracts for MS-DOS and Windows, even though many would prefer to preserve their freedom to offer PCs with non-Microsoft operating systems.
Microsoft's Licenses Impose a Penalty or Tax Paid to
Microsoft on OEMs' Use of Non-Microsoft PC Operating Systems
21. Microsoft's licenses impose a penalty or "tax" paid to Microsoft upon OEMs' use of competing PC operating systems. "Per processor" licenses require OEMs to pay a royalty for each computer the OEM sells containing a particular processor (e.g., an Intel 386 microprocessor) whether or not the OEM has included a Microsoft operating system with that computer.
22. Microsoft's per processor contracts penalize OEMs, during the life of the contract, for installing a non-Microsoft operating system. OEMs that have signed per processor contracts with Microsoft are deterred from using competitive alternatives to Microsoft operating systems.
The Contract Length of Microsoft's Anticompetitive
Per Processor Contracts Magnifies Its Exclusionary Effects
23. Microsoft further impedes PC operating system competitors by executing long-term contracts with major OEMs, and by requiring minimum commitments and crediting unused balances to future contracts, which effectively extends the contract term and makes it economically unattractive for an OEM to install a non- Microsoft operating system.
24. Microsoft's exclusionary licenses are often for a duration of three years or more -- a period of time equal to, or exceeding, the product life cycle of most PC operating system products. Microsoft often extends the term of its OEM licenses through amendment. Thus, Microsoft's anticompetitive per processor contracts can extend to beyond five years.
Microsoft's Exclusionary Contracts Foreclose
Other PC Operating System Vendors From a Substantial
and Critically Important Segment of the Market
25. Access to the OEM channel is critical to the success of a competing operating system. The overwhelming majority of PCs are sold with a pre-installed operating system. Thus, to reach the ultimate consumer of an operating system, it is important that competitors have access to OEMs. Operating system vendors, as well as OEMs, confirm that successful entry is extremely difficult in the absence of "proper support" in the OEM channel in the form of public commitments to sell a new operating system.
26. Since 1988, Microsoft has induced major OEMs to execute per processor contracts, many of which extend for several years. These OEMs are critical to the success of a new operating system entrant; it would be virtually impossible for a new entrant to achieve commercial success solely through license agreements with small OEMs that are not covered by Microsoft's per processor agreements. According to Microsoft, in fiscal year 1993, per processor agreements accounted for an estimated 60% of Microsoft's MS-DOS sales to OEMs and 43% of Windows sales to OEMs.
27. Competing operating system developers, finding the largest OEMs contractually bound by Microsoft's exclusionary licenses, are disadvantaged in their efforts to bring to the consumer less expensive and/or better quality operating system products.
28. The effect of Microsoft's licensing practices has been to exclude competitors by unreasonable and anticompetitive means and to lessen competition in the relevant market. Microsoft's practices deter OEMs from entering into licensing agreements with competing operating system providers, discourage OEMs who agree to sell non-Microsoft operating systems from promoting those products, and raise the price of computers sold with competing operating systems, thereby depressing the demand and restricting the output of these products. Microsoft's licensing practices have effectively foreclosed a substantial share of the relevant market; they are exclusionary, anticompetitive, and not justified by legitimate business considerations.
Somethings about the trials:
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was called "evasive and nonresponsive" by a source present at a session in which Gates was questioned on his deposition.[2] He argued over the definitions of words such as "compete", "concerned", "ask", and "we".[3] BusinessWeek reported, "Early rounds of his deposition show him offering obfuscatory answers and saying 'I don't recall' so many times that even the presiding judge had to chuckle. Worse, many of the technology chief's denials and pleas of ignorance have been directly refuted by prosecutors with snippets of E-mail Gates both sent and received."[4]Intel Vice-President Steven McGeady, called as a witness, quoted Paul Maritz, a senior Microsoft vice president as having stated an intention to "extinguish" and "smother" rival Netscape Communications Corporation and to "cut off Netscape's air supply" by giving away a clone of Netscape's flagship product for free. The Microsoft executive denied the allegations.[5]
...
Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact[11] on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86 based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others. Then on April 3, 2000, he issued a two-part ruling: his conclusions of law were that Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and his remedy was that Microsoft must be broken into two separate units, one to produce the operating system, and one to produce other software components.
...
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft. This was partly because the Appellate court had adopted a "drastically altered scope of liability" under which the Remedies could be taken, and also partly due to the embargoed interviews Judge Jackson had given to the news media while he was still hearing the case, in violation of the Code of Conduct for US Judges.[13] Judge Jackson did not attend the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing, in which the appeals court judges accused him of unethical conduct and determined he should have recused himself from the case.[14]
Judge Jackson's response to this was that Microsoft's conduct itself was the cause of any "perceived bias"; Microsoft executives had "proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, and transparently false. ... Microsoft is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior management is not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of its wrongdoing."[15]
Today MS keeps having questionable relations with hardware vendors: http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/132989.asp
And charging other companies for using Linux! http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10458849-16.html
If that's not disgusting and a way to try to control the market I don't know what is.
kuraimen
I have my reasons for what I say I don't write stuff just because, I have worked with computers for a long time. Interestingly enough people usually just ignores all that and never debates even half the points made in those statements. Of course that's exactly what MS wants for you to ignore all that stuff and focus on the charitable Billy.
Log in to comment