Posted on 11/02/2001 6:47:52 AM PST by Dominic Harr
Microsoft is officially a criminal, anti-capitalist 'looter' corp.
Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that Microsoft engaged in unlawful exclusionary conduct by using contractual provisions
Oh, and the states *still* haven't signed on. This may not even be the end.
But the restrictions on contracts should do it. If Microsoft is actually forced to compete, instead of using illegal contracts to control the distributors, I'm betting that they can't compete on honest terms.
So, devoid of it's illegal contracts to control the distributors, can Microsoft compete legally?
For the first time in it's life, Microsoft will have to actually compete!
Microsoft used force, threats and intimidation to get distributors to sign illegal, anti-capitalist contracts.
Please don't burn half this thread playing 'Clintonista', declaring the convicted criminals innocent. If you haven't actually seen the evidence, perhaps you don't know the details of the case. But they were convicted of serious illegality on a mountain of evidence.
That conviction was upheld by a friendly appeals court and a friendly Supreme Court.
Microsoft is convicted, and guilty.
No punishement at all, as far as I can tell. That's the 'bought and paid for' part.
I expected that, actually.
I'm just surprised that they still put these restrictions on Microsoft. And in this way -- no enforcement really is needed for the most significant restrictions.
Distributors just now know that they can ignore Microsoft's attempts to bully them. And any illegal contracts can just be ignored now, since Microsoft can't enforce those contracts in court.
Microsoft has failed every time they had to compete in a 'free market'! Now their OS will have to actually compete . . .
uhh.... against whom?
Against anyone who wants to build a company around an OS.
Up until now, that was an impossibility. No one would spend money building an OS company, because of the illegal contracts that MS used to guarantee that the new company's product would never even be offered to consumers.
Now a company can go to Dell and get Dell to offer their OS *also*. And Dell doesn't have to fear Microsoft's retaliation.
The person you responded to does have a point. The government never proved that consumers were actually harmed. I do concede the MS was involved in some questionable practices. The market moves so quickly though that it tends to correct the problems.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let me know when I can buy a Pepsi at McDonalds.
A contract require two parties. Why do the other parties sign these contracts if they are so bad. Are they morons?
Ah, the beauty of a monopoly. You no longer have to live within the bounds of mutually beneficial contracts.
You -- really don't know this?
There are several ways . . .
When you are someone's major suplier, you have that person by the short and curlies.
For example, take Budweiser. If you're a retail store, and Bud is 45% of your beer sales, you *need* Bud.
So if a new 'startup' company comes along with a new Beer, Bud could come to you with a contract -- if you sell the new beer, you will lose your Bud contract.
That's just ONE of the illegal techniques Microsoft has used, specifically against Netscape.
Another would be direct kickbacks for not selling competing software. Another would be requiring the distributor to pay for a copy of Windows EVEN ON MACHINES SOLD WITH OTHER OS'S ON IT.
These tactics are illegal. And they are the very basis of Microsoft's OS monopoly.
Actually, yes they did. There was some 15 pages written on that specific point -- harm to consumers -- in the final ruling by the Appeals Court.
The consumer has a right to a 'free' market. MS used illegal contracts to remove that right.
Now if you want me to 'prove' that a free market benefits consumers . . .
Microsoft useded any tool to eliminate any business viewed as a "threat". Apple was bought out, by Microsoft, as they began building a customer base. Microsoft gave away Explorer as Netscape began building a customer base. Microsoft threatened to pull all o/s options to any hardware manufacturer who offered to incolude any other o/s as options (Lynux). OEM's (original equipment manufacturer's) couldn't include other opperating systems other than Microsoft without loosing all of Microsoft's business.
Microsofts view of a "threat" is any business that could become a competition at any time.
Intell had some of the same business views and pratices but they choose to settle with the Justice Department several years ago. Microsoft choose to fight. Microsoft was and is guilty of all charges.
I have worked at Intel for the last 5 years in the motherboard division. We worked closely with Microsoft and their opperating systems on our products.
Not true at all. I have bought systems for more than ten years without an operating system loaded. You can go to any local PC clone and buy a machine without an operating system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.