Microsoft vs. DOJ: who do *you* think is winning?

Microsoft vs. DOJ: who do *you* think is winning?

Post by Will » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



I think it's looking real good for Microsoft.  Here's why:

The DOJ hasn't presented any evidence of actual anti-trust type
behavior; that is, evidence that Microsoft has bullied people or
companies into doing what they want.  The only evidence they have is
the integration (or tying, as the DOJ calls it) of IE into Windows.
However, regardless of MS's intent, the Appellate Court of DC ruled
that this particular tying is legal.

The DOJ is presenting an amazing amount of irrelevant evidence.  For
instance:

The definition of an OS - Completely irrelevant.  There's nothing
within the laws regarding product tying that takes the definition of a
product into account.  A monopoly can legally tie two products
together without the two products being viewed as one product.

Apple/Quicktime issue - Completely irrelevant.  Even if Microsoft had
done what was claimed, Microsoft would be guilty of leveraging their
Office monopoly.  However, Office was dropped from the suit.  At no
time did Microsoft ever leverage their OS monopoly against Apple.

AOL agreement - This was a huge mistake for the DOJ.  They actually
state (in their charges) that Microsoft forced AOL into an agreement.
Then the AOL prez gets on the stand and states that they used IE for
technical reasons.  Further, AOL just bought Netscape and it's clear
that the agreement between AOL and Microsoft will not be renewed.
Sure, Microsoft has it all over AOL.  Yeah right.

Java?  Well, regardless of merits of Microsoft's Java arguments, it
looks like Microsoft has the Judge in their corner on this one.

The DOJ has also made confusing statements.  For instance, they claim
that the price of the operating system has remained the same, proving
that MS has a monopoly.  But then they claim that IE isn't free, but
paid for in the price of the OS.  Well excuse me, but if I pay for IE
in the price of Windows, then the price of Windows must be less than
previous OSes.  If the price of the Windows is the same as previous
OSes, then IE must be free.  Sorry DOJ, you can't have it both ways.
Pick one.

Am I wrong?  Where's the evidence?  Where's the e-mail from a
Microsoft VP saying "make AOL use IE" or "force those ISPs to sign an
exclusive agreement." ?  They're just not there.

I predict that Microsoft will lose the trial because of emotion, but
will win on appeal, where they actually consider the evidence (or lack
thereof.).

 
 
 

Microsoft vs. DOJ: who do *you* think is winning?

Post by Rob Barr » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




> I think it's looking real good for Microsoft.  Here's why:

> The DOJ hasn't presented any evidence of actual anti-trust type
> behavior; that is, evidence that Microsoft has bullied people or
> companies into doing what they want.

   I was laughing too hard to read the rest. Sorry!

Rob

 
 
 

Microsoft vs. DOJ: who do *you* think is winning?

Post by Maury Markowi » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> The DOJ hasn't presented any evidence of actual anti-trust type
> behavior; that is, evidence that Microsoft has bullied people or
> companies into doing what they want.

  Sure they have, what news have you been watching? They've also
_attempted_ to show that they are a monopoly, which is when the former
behaviour becomes a problem.  The Gov's case stands on _both_ of these
points, however I think they have only really demonstrated the first of the
two to any degree.  However the first is what you are claiming they haven't
done, but they've had witness after witness that has shown a clear pattern
of attempting to form a market division, followed by retaliatory actions
when such (illegal) suggestions failed to be agreed to by the other party.

Quote:> the integration (or tying, as the DOJ calls it) of IE into Windows.

  They have not introduced this into evidence as far as I know.  This isn't
evidence, this is the _action_.  When someone is accused of stealing you
don't introduce "the stealing" into evidence, you introduce evidence that
supports the claim that the robbery took place (or didn't). Microsoft is
accused of using it's monopoly powers in the desktop operating system to
lock a competitor out of their market space by bundling IE with the OS.
Bundling is the "crime" here, not the evidence.

Quote:> However, regardless of MS's intent, the Appellate Court of DC ruled
> that this particular tying is legal.

  IIRC they did nothing of the sort, and instead said there was not enough
evidence to suggest that such bundling is illegal.  There is a _very_ large
difference between the two statements.

Quote:> The definition of an OS - Completely irrelevant.  There's nothing
> within the laws regarding product tying that takes the definition of a
> product into account.  A monopoly can legally tie two products
> together without the two products being viewed as one product.

  Not if the bundling in question is a deliberate attempt to lock out
another competing product.  Then it is illegal.

Quote:> Apple/Quicktime issue - Completely irrelevant.  Even if Microsoft had
> done what was claimed, Microsoft would be guilty of leveraging their
> Office monopoly

  No, that's completely incorrect.  MS is accused in this case of
attempting to divide the market.  This is not illegal if it does not
happen, and the DoJ is not attempting to try them for this attempt.  They
are using it to show a repeated pattern of attempts to divide markets, and
as such the evidence is very relivant.

Quote:> AOL agreement - This was a huge mistake for the DOJ.  They actually
> state (in their charges) that Microsoft forced AOL into an agreement.
> Then the AOL prez gets on the stand and states that they used IE for
> technical reasons.  Further, AOL just bought Netscape and it's clear
> that the agreement between AOL and Microsoft will not be renewed.
> Sure, Microsoft has it all over AOL.  Yeah right.

  Once again it is clear you do not understand the legal argument.  The
basis for the inclusion of AOL in the suit was to attempt to demonstrate
that MS was engauged in preditory practices.

Quote:> The DOJ has also made confusing statements.  For instance, they claim
> that the price of the operating system has remained the same, proving
> that MS has a monopoly.  But then they claim that IE isn't free, but
> paid for in the price of the OS.  Well excuse me, but if I pay for IE
> in the price of Windows, then the price of Windows must be less than
> previous OSes.  If the price of the Windows is the same as previous
> OSes, then IE must be free.  Sorry DOJ, you can't have it both ways.
> Pick one.

 Whereas Gates' testimony is perfectly cool in your books?  Welcome to the
world of law.

Quote:> Am I wrong?  Where's the evidence?  Where's the e-mail from a
> Microsoft VP saying "make AOL use IE" or "force those ISPs to sign an
> exclusive agreement." ?  They're just not there.

  Yes they are.  They have e-mail talking about how much it will cost to
buy off AOL.  Why are you ignoring this?

Quote:> I predict that Microsoft will lose the trial because of emotion, but
> will win on appeal, where they actually consider the evidence (or lack
> thereof.).

  What do you have to suggest that this trial is not being judged on the
meritcs of the evidence?

Maury

 
 
 

Microsoft vs. DOJ: who do *you* think is winning?

Post by Will » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 20:57:11 GMT, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy



>> The DOJ hasn't presented any evidence...
>  Sure they have, what news have you been watching?

Actually, I've been following through ZD Network News.  The have a
section for the case where they have links to all the court documents.

Quote:> They've also
>_attempted_ to show that they are a monopoly,

Yeah.  I think that part of it is silly.  Regardless of how vulerable
Microsoft may or may not be, there's simply is no question that, at
this moment,  they have a monopoly share of the OS market.

Quote:>> the integration (or tying, as the DOJ calls it) of IE into Windows.

>  They have not introduced this into evidence as far as I know.

It's part of the charges.

Quote:>> However, regardless of MS's intent, the Appellate Court of DC ruled
>> that this particular tying is legal.

>  IIRC they did nothing of the sort, and instead said there was not enough
>evidence to suggest that such bundling is illegal.  There is a _very_ large
>difference between the two statements.

Are you joking?  Maybe you should read the ruling:
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-5343a.txt

"On the facts before us, however,
we are inclined to conclude that the Windows 95/IE package
is a genuine integration;  consequently, s IV(E)(i) does not
bar Microsoft from offering it as one product."

Quote:>> The definition of an OS - Completely irrelevant.  There's nothing
>> within the laws regarding product tying that takes the definition of a
>> product into account.  A monopoly can legally tie two products
>> together without the two products being viewed as one product.

>  Not if the bundling in question is a deliberate attempt to lock out
>another competing product.  Then it is illegal.

When I said "a monopoly can legally tie two products together" I was
referring to a tying situation that would be legal under anti-trust
scrutiny.  In any case, the definition of the product remains
irrelevant.

Quote:>> Apple/Quicktime issue - Completely irrelevant.  Even if Microsoft had
>> done what was claimed, Microsoft would be guilty of leveraging their
>> Office monopoly

>  No, that's completely incorrect.  MS is accused in this case of
>attempting to divide the market.

Are we following the same trial?  Apple accused Microsoft of trying to
kill QuickTime.
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2158244,00.html

Quote:>> AOL agreement - This was a huge mistake for the DOJ.  They actually
>> state (in their charges) that Microsoft forced AOL into an agreement.
>> Then the AOL prez gets on the stand and states that they used IE for
>> technical reasons.  Further, AOL just bought Netscape and it's clear
>> that the agreement between AOL and Microsoft will not be renewed.
>> Sure, Microsoft has it all over AOL.  Yeah right.

>  Once again it is clear you do not understand the legal argument.  The
>basis for the inclusion of AOL in the suit was to attempt to demonstrate
>that MS was engauged in preditory practices.

Actually, the charges that involve AOL fall under "exclusionary
behavior."  It's clear that you don't understand that when the AOL
prez gets on the stand and says that they selected IE for technical
reasons, that all the DOJ legal arguments are refuted (as far as AOL
is concerned.)

Quote:>> The DOJ has also made confusing statements.  For instance, they claim
>> that the price of the operating system has remained the same, proving
>> that MS has a monopoly.  But then they claim that IE isn't free, but
>> paid for in the price of the OS.  Well excuse me, but if I pay for IE
>> in the price of Windows, then the price of Windows must be less than
>> previous OSes.  If the price of the Windows is the same as previous
>> OSes, then IE must be free.  Sorry DOJ, you can't have it both ways.
>> Pick one.

> Whereas Gates' testimony is perfectly cool in your books?  Welcome to the
>world of law.

It's clear he's being a hostile witness.  So?  What about my
statement?  Is IE free or does Windows cost less?

Quote:>> Am I wrong?  Where's the evidence?  Where's the e-mail from a
>> Microsoft VP saying "make AOL use IE" or "force those ISPs to sign an
>> exclusive agreement." ?  They're just not there.

>  Yes they are.  They have e-mail talking about how much it will cost to
>buy off AOL.  Why are you ignoring this?

I'm not.  10 million, if I remember correctly.  This simply goes to
show how little influence Microsoft had over AOL.  In any case, this
isn't illegal.  "Buying off" is not "bullying."  They've only broken
the law when they bully companies.  There's nothing wrong with giving
AOL a sweet deal, which they did even though it was clear that if AOL
wanted to integrate a browser into their software it would have to be
IE because Navigator wouldn't work.

Quote:>> I predict that Microsoft will lose the trial because of emotion, but
>> will win on appeal, where they actually consider the evidence (or lack
>> thereof.).

>  What do you have to suggest that this trial is not being judged on the
>meritcs of the evidence?

If it was, it would have been dismissed already.
 
 
 

Microsoft vs. DOJ: who do *you* think is winning?

Post by Terry Barto » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Quote:>> >  Sure they have, what news have you been watching?

> Actually, I've been following through ZD Network News.  The have a
> section for the case where they have links to all the court documents.

Are you aware of the fact the ZD stands for Ziff Davis Publishing?  A
Microsoft Owned affilate.  Have you also been following it on MSNBC?
 
 
 

Microsoft vs. DOJ: who do *you* think is winning?

Post by Michae » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


I don't think it matters who wins. By the very fact that theres an ongoing
trial, Microsoft has already modified their behaviour. The longer the trial
(and the appeals) go on, the greater the likelihood that some threat to
Microsofts empire will emerge that MS can't respond to in the usual way.

History lesson: circa 1980 DOJ is on IBMs case, claiming they are abusing
their mainframe monopoly. IBM decides to build a PC, but decides to make it
an open system, and not maintain control of the OS for it. Why? (1) IBM
didn't dream their PC would be a huge success, (2) No need to stir up the
anti-trust forces any more than they were already. The rest is history. The
PC revolution begins, with IBM playing only a small role, and IBMs
mainframe monopoly becomes irrelevant.

Hmm. How might history repeat itself?

Michael Monner

 
 
 

Microsoft vs. DOJ: who do *you* think is winning?

Post by Bori » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Quote:>I don't think it matters who wins. By the very fact that theres an ongoing
>trial, Microsoft has already modified their behaviour. The longer the trial
>(and the appeals) go on, the greater the likelihood that some threat to
>Microsofts empire will emerge that MS can't respond to in the usual way.

Microsoft has the best technical talent in the industry. Where would that threat emerge
from?

Boris

 
 
 

Microsoft vs. DOJ: who do *you* think is winning?

Post by Richard Tilman » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> I think it's looking real good for Microsoft.  Here's why:

;
;
;
;
;>

Quote:> I predict that Microsoft will lose the trial because of emotion, but
> will win on appeal, where they actually consider the evidence (or lack
> thereof.).

Willy,

You must understand that this trial is about 'policy', not about 'law'.

The question is MicroSoft damaging consumer interests and technology
innovation with their behavior. If they are, if it's not illegal, it
should be.  There is no reason for us to suffer this kind of damage from
a from a private interest any more than it would be from a foreign
nation.

 
 
 

Microsoft vs. DOJ: who do *you* think is winning?

Post by Bill Vermilli » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




>>> >  Sure they have, what news have you been watching?

>> Actually, I've been following through ZD Network News.  The have a
>> section for the case where they have links to all the court documents.

>Are you aware of the fact the ZD stands for Ziff Davis Publishing?  A
>Microsoft Owned affilate.  Have you also been following it on MSNBC?

ZD was bought by Soft-Bank - the people who also bought Comdex.
Owned by a Japanese businessman as I recall.

--

 
 
 

Microsoft vs. DOJ: who do *you* think is winning?

Post by wfoste » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> Microsoft has the best technical talent in the industry.

That's just one person's opinion. I have a different one.
 
 
 

Microsoft vs. DOJ: who do *you* think is winning?

Post by Will » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 00:45:47 -0500, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy


>   Hang on, didn't he actually say, in effect: "We did not select IE for
>technical reasons as the MS lawyer claims. The technology they had which
>Netscape didn't have only is applicable to W95, and we have only 20-30%
>users on W95. Most of them are on Win3.1, for which the technology is
>unavailable. We used IE anyway because it let us have a place on the
>windows desktop"

>   What part of this don't you understand? I think you are mistaking the
>MS lawyer for the witness ;)

No, Colburn never said that.  Please point me to the place in the
transcripts where he made that statement.  I couldn't find it.

Colburn said of Netscape, in an internal e-mail regarding the need for
an integrated browser, that "they still do not get it."

It is very clear from AOL's internal e-mails that AOL held all the
cards and were simply trying to maximize their exposure.  They were
willing to give the their share of the browser market (millions of AOL
users) to whoever gave them what they wanted.

 
 
 

Microsoft vs. DOJ: who do *you* think is winning?

Post by Jim Polas » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




> >I don't think it matters who wins. By the very fact that theres an ongoing
> >trial, Microsoft has already modified their behaviour. The longer the trial
> >(and the appeals) go on, the greater the likelihood that some threat to
> >Microsofts empire will emerge that MS can't respond to in the usual way.
> Microsoft has the best technical talent in the industry. Where would
that threat emerge
> from?

====
If that's the case, why has NT has so many security holes?
Why did M$ publically state that Win 98 fixed 3000 "Bugs" in 95...

...competent, I suppose. Innovative, not!