Microsoft sliding back towards evil monopolist?
or just a simple misunderstanding?
http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20051021/D8DC48D83.html?PG=home&SEC=news
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Is Microsoft up to old tricks, or did they just start to make a simple mistake in trying to setup exclusive deals in the music market?
Read and decide, or at least read and learn about the latest tricks that Bill G., Steve B. and their minions at Microsoft are up to. Apparently even with the big slaps by the Euros and the little slaps by the Bush administration, Microsoft is still making some of the same hostile (to their competitors and to consumers) agreements that they were found guilty of using to shore up their monopoly power in the past.
Found through IWon.com, originally by AP. Headline is linked.
Microsoft Recants Exclusive Music Deals
Oct 20, 9:27 PM (ET)
By TED BRIDIS
WASHINGTON (AP) - Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), already under government scrutiny over its behavior toward competitors, told manufacturers of iPod-like portable audio devices that under a new marketing program they would not be allowed to distribute rivals' music player software but pulled back after one company protested.
The Justice Department said that the incident was "unfortunate," but that government lawyers decided to drop the issue because Microsoft agreed 10 days later to change the proposal. The government disclosed details of the dispute in a federal court document made available Thursday.
The disputed proposal described in the court document as a "draft specification" would have affected portable music players that compete with Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL)'s wildly popular iPod. The plan would have precluded manufacturers of those devices from distributing software to consumers other than Microsoft's Windows Media Player in exchange for Microsoft-supplied CDs.
Legal and industry experts said Microsoft's demands probably would have violated the landmark 2002 antitrust settlement between the company and the Bush administration. They expressed astonishment that Microsoft was not more careful, given its mandatory legal training for employees about antitrust rules and continued monitoring by the Justice Department and a federal judge over its business deals through late 2007.
"One has to be skeptical that either the internal training is not working, in which case heads ought to be rolling, or that the lessons of the case are being ignored," said Albert A. Foer, head of the Washington-based American Antitrust Institute, which supports more aggressive U.S. antitrust policies.
Howard University law professor Andrew Gavil said he wonders whether Microsoft's proposal was a genuine mistake or signal the company intends to revert to its hardball tactics.
"It's somewhat amazing it even happened," said Gavil, who has closely followed the Microsoft case. "It's troubling that anyone inside Microsoft was still thinking this was a legitimate business strategy."
Microsoft said it recanted its proposal after lawyers reviewed it and after an unspecified industry rival complained. "We have a legal process in place that prevents these incidents from occurring," spokeswoman Stacy Drake said.
Drake described the proposal as "only a draft description of the program we sent to manufacturers for the purpose of getting their feedback." She said the proposal was not a contract, which is vetted by company lawyers.
The proposal, part of a campaign Microsoft called "easy start," affected one of the rare technology sectors where Microsoft is not already dominant: handheld music players and online music services. The software giant and others have struggled to match the runaway success of Apple iPod player and iTunes music service.
Microsoft wants consumers to use its media software to transfer songs onto their portable music players from Internet subscription services, such as those from Napster Inc. (NAPS), RealNetworks Inc. (RNWK) and Yahoo! Inc. Each company currently offers its own media software.
Before the disclosure of the dispute involving portable music players, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had set a hearing for this coming Wednesday to review the adequacy of the antitrust settlement. It was unclear whether she will challenge lawyers from Microsoft or the government over the music proposal.
One would seriously hope that Judge Kollar-Kotelly would call Microsoft in on this issue. It really does seem that Microsoft just can't change their behavior, or at least that some of their employees haven't learned the lessons they were supposed to have learned here.
I'm glad that they changed this before it was too late, but I still expect that over time they'll go right back to the same old bad behavior. I still wish that Thomas Penfield Jackson original decision had stood, though I was also disappointed that he didn't go further in ordering the break-up of Microsoft. If Microsoft was broken into 3 - 5 smaller companies I expect we'd have better competition for Apple and the IPod/ITunes market, better competition in the Office Software suite (with the smaller predominantly business software group pulled away from the home consumer software group, and both pulled away from the operating system group, etc.) and every other area.
Alas, Jackson ran his yap before the decision was really finalized and ruined his own decision in the process. Too bad for us, and great for Microsoft.
Read and decide, or at least read and learn about the latest tricks that Bill G., Steve B. and their minions at Microsoft are up to. Apparently even with the big slaps by the Euros and the little slaps by the Bush administration, Microsoft is still making some of the same hostile (to their competitors and to consumers) agreements that they were found guilty of using to shore up their monopoly power in the past.
Found through IWon.com, originally by AP. Headline is linked.
Microsoft Recants Exclusive Music Deals
Oct 20, 9:27 PM (ET)
By TED BRIDIS
WASHINGTON (AP) - Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), already under government scrutiny over its behavior toward competitors, told manufacturers of iPod-like portable audio devices that under a new marketing program they would not be allowed to distribute rivals' music player software but pulled back after one company protested.
The Justice Department said that the incident was "unfortunate," but that government lawyers decided to drop the issue because Microsoft agreed 10 days later to change the proposal. The government disclosed details of the dispute in a federal court document made available Thursday.
The disputed proposal described in the court document as a "draft specification" would have affected portable music players that compete with Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL)'s wildly popular iPod. The plan would have precluded manufacturers of those devices from distributing software to consumers other than Microsoft's Windows Media Player in exchange for Microsoft-supplied CDs.
Legal and industry experts said Microsoft's demands probably would have violated the landmark 2002 antitrust settlement between the company and the Bush administration. They expressed astonishment that Microsoft was not more careful, given its mandatory legal training for employees about antitrust rules and continued monitoring by the Justice Department and a federal judge over its business deals through late 2007.
"One has to be skeptical that either the internal training is not working, in which case heads ought to be rolling, or that the lessons of the case are being ignored," said Albert A. Foer, head of the Washington-based American Antitrust Institute, which supports more aggressive U.S. antitrust policies.
Howard University law professor Andrew Gavil said he wonders whether Microsoft's proposal was a genuine mistake or signal the company intends to revert to its hardball tactics.
"It's somewhat amazing it even happened," said Gavil, who has closely followed the Microsoft case. "It's troubling that anyone inside Microsoft was still thinking this was a legitimate business strategy."
Microsoft said it recanted its proposal after lawyers reviewed it and after an unspecified industry rival complained. "We have a legal process in place that prevents these incidents from occurring," spokeswoman Stacy Drake said.
Drake described the proposal as "only a draft description of the program we sent to manufacturers for the purpose of getting their feedback." She said the proposal was not a contract, which is vetted by company lawyers.
The proposal, part of a campaign Microsoft called "easy start," affected one of the rare technology sectors where Microsoft is not already dominant: handheld music players and online music services. The software giant and others have struggled to match the runaway success of Apple iPod player and iTunes music service.
Microsoft wants consumers to use its media software to transfer songs onto their portable music players from Internet subscription services, such as those from Napster Inc. (NAPS), RealNetworks Inc. (RNWK) and Yahoo! Inc. Each company currently offers its own media software.
Before the disclosure of the dispute involving portable music players, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had set a hearing for this coming Wednesday to review the adequacy of the antitrust settlement. It was unclear whether she will challenge lawyers from Microsoft or the government over the music proposal.
One would seriously hope that Judge Kollar-Kotelly would call Microsoft in on this issue. It really does seem that Microsoft just can't change their behavior, or at least that some of their employees haven't learned the lessons they were supposed to have learned here.
I'm glad that they changed this before it was too late, but I still expect that over time they'll go right back to the same old bad behavior. I still wish that Thomas Penfield Jackson original decision had stood, though I was also disappointed that he didn't go further in ordering the break-up of Microsoft. If Microsoft was broken into 3 - 5 smaller companies I expect we'd have better competition for Apple and the IPod/ITunes market, better competition in the Office Software suite (with the smaller predominantly business software group pulled away from the home consumer software group, and both pulled away from the operating system group, etc.) and every other area.
Alas, Jackson ran his yap before the decision was really finalized and ruined his own decision in the process. Too bad for us, and great for Microsoft.