Comments on: Wired on Google’s Coming Antitrust Nightmare

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:55:32 +0000

No. bundling is more complicated than that. The browser and the OS for example is impermissible and illegal bundling.

I am not sure the issue of computer and OS bundling has come before the courts in terms on the PC, but there was a case with IBM and their mainframe software...

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:51:59 +0000

No–the difference is the anti-competitive behavior and contracts that Microsoft has illegally promulgated are in fact preventing OS-less computers from being sold. The FTC has been slow to respond, and MS has proved themselves more agile and better supplied with lawyers–but they have broken the law.

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:55:32 +0000

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:51:59 +0000

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:55:32 +0000

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:51:59 +0000

By: MikeRT

MikeRT — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:03:54 +0000

My point is that these are two independent products that should not be "bolted" together.

Just like car bodies and car engines. After all, Ford should just take it for granted that I might want to put a Honda VTec engine in a new Escort body.

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:55:00 +0000

Not quite correct. A more appropriate counter analogy would be the ability to buy a car without an engine. Both the OS and the computers exist and are mass marketed. I don't know of any hydrogen car that is sold retail. My point is that these are two independent products that should not be "bolted" together.

Yes, there are many small vendors that will sell a computer without the OS. That is exactly what we have done.

By: MikeRT

MikeRT — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:34:15 +0000

Seems to me that if we have true free market, one should be able to buy a computer less the cost of and without the pre-loaded operating system.

That's like saying that we don't have a free market because you cannot buy a hydrogen-powered car. A lack of choices at particular stores does not make the market itself controlled. As it currently stands, there are plenty of smaller vendors that will sell you a PC with no OS or another one that they know how to support.

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:26:39 +0000

Periodically, when at Best Buy, I ask if I can buy a computer without the the operating system, which (of course) is Windows. I am repeatably told NO. Seems to me that if we have true free market, one should be able to buy a computer less the cost of and without the pre-loaded operating system.

PS: What is even more humerus, to get WindowsXP instead of VISTA you have to pay a "downgrade" fee. So we have to pay twice for one operating system!!!!

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 04:27:00 +0000

Although Microsoft ultimately settled, the public beating appears to have taken a toll on the company, which has been unable to maintain its reputation for innovation and industry leadership.

Adam, that's bizarre to ascribe Microsoft's present reputation to the beating it took in anti-trust court.

I'd be more likely to ascribe Microsoft's poor reputation to poor products (Vista, the Zune, every edition of Windows, the user interface in the new MS Office) or better products from it's competition (for example the wii, Apple's OS) or their anti-competitive behavior (eg. their licensing deals, such as those Mike RT mentions above) which shows the Microsoft is themselves aware of how inferior their product is. Not to mention such anti-freedom comments like the famous one re: linux being 'viral' or those contained in the Halloween memo. MS is fully capable of destroying their reputation without any help from the DOJ...

By: MikeRT

MikeRT — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:01:36 +0000

Microsoft, unlike Google, made two major mistakes:

1) It integrated IE into Windows, a move that was transparently intended to stifle competition without technical benefit to the customer.

2) It relied on very dangerously worded contracts with OEMs that prevented companies like Be Inc from ever having a chance to get their products installed. As I recall, Dell actually wanted to offer BeOS as an option on some of its systems, but the terms of Microsoft's contracts were so draconian that it would have imposed costs on them that would have rendered them non-competitive with HP and Compaq.

Whatever one may feel about antitrust laws, it was clear that under Bill Gates, Microsoft behaved like a kid that would go up to the tiger's cage and poke the big kitty with a sharp stick.

By: Washington Planner » Afternoon roundup

Washington Planner » Afternoon roundup — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:38:50 +0000

[...] Liberation Front points to the brewing storm between two idols of that generation: Obama and [...]

By: Google: Target for Destruction?- The SiliconANGLE

Google: Target for Destruction?- The SiliconANGLE — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:47:33 +0000

[...] Adam Thierer over Technology Liberation Front pulls out a quote from Eric Goldman today that I think most succinctly expresses why an antitrust case against Google is a Bad Idea: “The problem for antitrust in high tech is that the environment changes so rapidly. Someone who looks strong today won’t necessarily be strong tomorrow.” [...]