The European Microsoft Judgment, Crackpot Ideas and Innovative Compatability Solutions
(why do these guys look so happy?)
(for a thorough analysis of the ruling and comments pro and con, see the New York Times article, Microsoft Ruling May Bode Ill for Other Companies.
The comment of greatest interest to us here at the IP ADR Blog is the note that "antitrust enforcement [is] too slow to grapple with fast-moving high-technology markets," so that market forces, rather than the rule of law, prevail. For full NYT article click here.
If those market forces are controlled by a monopoly, we may have to begin looking for other ways to balance the forces of competition, innovation, and consumer interests).
Yesterday's Post on Tension Between Consumer Protection and a "Free" Market
I think most creatively on the freeway. Well, on the freeway and in the shower. And on an elliptical trainer. These are all places I'm not supposed to be thinking so I park my brain in neutral and it performs wonderful tricks for me.
It's pretty damn creative, actually. It grabs odd trails of thought, puts them together and then taps me on the shoulder and asks How about this?
It's particularly helpful to have Mr. Thrifty in the car for a long drive because I'm a chatterer. A world class stream of consciousness natter-er. This should make you happy not to be married to someone like me.
Anyway, as I was nattering on the 405 between Sunset and the 118 on Sunday, driving to my Dad's house in Northridge, I said this: Why doesn't someone load a laptop with the best programs available, make them COMPATIBLE and then sell the loaded laptop?
My brain gave me that nugget as I was complaining about the new Vista Operating system. Since I know nothing whatsoever about software or hardware, I have no clue whether it's a good idea or not. I only know this: I purchased a new laptop with a Vista Operating System on it and NOTHING is compatible with anything else and it really $%#^%$'es me off.
So I must report that I'm happy with the Judgment of the European Court of First Instance in Case T-201/04 Microsoft v Commission.
Since I'm a devotee of Sun Microsystems CEO Jonathan Schwartz's rallying cry Innovate Don't Litigate, I wish the software industry would spend its money innovating around Microsoft rather than litigating against it. (and yes, Jonathan, we'll forgive you for partnering up with Microsoft here because we think you might help make its products better -- at least we're counting on you so please don't disappoint us).
Nevertheless, I'm happy to see good work being done for the consumer on all fronts, including the European Court of First Instance which just held as follows:
- Microsoft abused its dominant position by refusing to supply interoperability information to competitors for work group server operating systems.
- Microsoft abused its dominant position by bundling the Windows media player with its Windows PC operating system.
- The Commission did not err in assessing the gravity and duration of the infringement and did not err in setting the amount of the fine. The €497 million fine imposed on Microsoft stands.
Still, I'd really like to see someone launch that compatible laptop. I'm first in line and will pay a very good price for it.
I think you're missing the point - Microsoft deliberately complicates interoperability and compatibility, STARTING with the foundation element in every application, the operating system (Vista).
The cost of porting and adapting your software is part of the barrier to entry they create against their peers - as soon as you have any level of interoperability via reverse engineering, they gum up the works with a new OS. Because they're a monopoly, you don't have a choice but to grind out a new port - if you want to leverage their reach.
The resources from that work depletes the resources you have to invest elsewhere - and thus they perpetuate their monopoly. For some reason, all Microsoft's apps work relatively seamlessly, though, on day 1. I wonder why that, or how, that is.
Please don't be naive - in the business you're in, you have to have a better grasp of the danger they present to a free and functioning market.
Thanks for the comment. Part of this Blog's reason- for-being is its authors desire to stay as current with technology as we do with the law. We greatly appreciate reader comments like this one.