Microsoft: Difference between revisions
NotARobot06 (talk | contribs) finally move the mess that the consumer impact summary was into the main body... now main body is a little messy but it's mostly stuff that needs expanding upon. fixed up some citations |
NotARobot06 (talk | contribs) →JJH Enterprises Limited (trading as ValueLicensing) v Microsoft Corporation and Others (2021-ongoing): add citation for the page for the actual case |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
==Consumer impact summary<!-- first draft of summary; some citations needed to throughout but otherwise should be okay. do not remove bullet points below until they are fully integrated elsewhere in longer sections -->== | ==Consumer impact summary<!-- first draft of summary; some citations needed to throughout but otherwise should be okay. do not remove bullet points below until they are fully integrated elsewhere in longer sections -->== | ||
Microsoft is engaged in significant anti consumer and anticompetitive practices, often leading to lawsuits. Most of the practices are attempts at increasing its monopolisitc grip on consumers, coercing to using their services and their services only. Notably shown by its attempts to force Internet Explorer and now Edge onto Windows users culminating in an antitrust lawsuit, signing exclusive deals with OEMs to push out competition, using [[wikipedia:Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish|"embrace, extend, extinguish"]] tactics to eliminate competitors, thus impeding user control and freedom. Microsoft is also engaged in mass surveillance (PRISM program)<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=2013--07-11 |title=Snowden Reveals Microsoft PRISM Cooperation: Helped NSA Decrypt Emails, Chats, Skype Conversations |url=https://www.ibtimes.com/snowden-reveals-microsoft-prism-cooperation-helped-nsa-decrypt-emails-chats-skype-conversations |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250701125316/https://www.ibtimes.com/snowden-reveals-microsoft-prism-cooperation-helped-nsa-decrypt-emails-chats-skype-conversations |archive-date=2025-07-01 |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=International Business Times}}</ref> and has been known to remove content from Bing to appease China's authoritarian regime.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nicholas |first=Kristof |date=2009-11-20 |title=Boycott Microsoft Bing |url=http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/boycott-microsoft-bing/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091123194315/http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/boycott-microsoft-bing/ |archive-date=2009-11-23 |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=The New York Times}}</ref> | Microsoft is engaged in significant anti consumer and anticompetitive practices, often leading to lawsuits. Most of the practices are attempts at increasing its monopolisitc grip on consumers, coercing them to using their services and their services only. Notably shown by its attempts to force Internet Explorer and now Edge onto Windows users culminating in an antitrust lawsuit, signing exclusive deals with OEMs to push out competition, using [[wikipedia:Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish|"embrace, extend, extinguish"]] tactics to eliminate competitors, thus impeding user control and freedom. Microsoft is also engaged in mass surveillance (PRISM program)<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=2013--07-11 |title=Snowden Reveals Microsoft PRISM Cooperation: Helped NSA Decrypt Emails, Chats, Skype Conversations |url=https://www.ibtimes.com/snowden-reveals-microsoft-prism-cooperation-helped-nsa-decrypt-emails-chats-skype-conversations |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250701125316/https://www.ibtimes.com/snowden-reveals-microsoft-prism-cooperation-helped-nsa-decrypt-emails-chats-skype-conversations |archive-date=2025-07-01 |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=International Business Times}}</ref> and has been known to remove content from Bing to appease China's authoritarian regime.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nicholas |first=Kristof |date=2009-11-20 |title=Boycott Microsoft Bing |url=http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/boycott-microsoft-bing/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091123194315/http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/boycott-microsoft-bing/ |archive-date=2009-11-23 |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=The New York Times}}</ref> | ||
==Anticompetitive Lawsuits== | ==Anticompetitive Lawsuits== | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
In the case ''United States v.'' Microsoft Corp'''''.''','' 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000),<ref>[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/87/30/2307082/ "United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000)"] - law.justia.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref> Microsoft's conduct taken as a whole was described as a "deliberate assault upon entrepreneurial efforts that, could well have enabled the introduction of competition into the market for [[Intel]]-compatible PC operating systems". Further, "Microsoft's anti-competitive actions trammeled the competitive process through which the computer software industry generally stimulates innovation and conduces to the optimum benefit of consumers." | In the case ''United States v.'' Microsoft Corp'''''.''','' 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000),<ref>[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/87/30/2307082/ "United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000)"] - law.justia.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref> Microsoft's conduct taken as a whole was described as a "deliberate assault upon entrepreneurial efforts that, could well have enabled the introduction of competition into the market for [[Intel]]-compatible PC operating systems". Further, "Microsoft's anti-competitive actions trammeled the competitive process through which the computer software industry generally stimulates innovation and conduces to the optimum benefit of consumers." | ||
==== Anticompetitive Practices revealed in this Lawsuit ==== | ====Summary of Anticompetitive Practices revealed in this Lawsuit==== | ||
* | :*Intentionally slowing development of rival products like IBM and Apple through contractual or technical barriers.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=2002-01-25 |title=Competitive Processes, Anticompetitive Practices And Consumer Harm In The Software Industry: An Analysis Of The Inadequacies Of The Microsoft-Department Of Justice Proposed Final Judgment |url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/competitive-processes-anticompetitive-practices-and-consumer-harm-software-industry-analysis |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171115104834/https://www.justice.gov/atr/competitive-processes-anticompetitive-practices-and-consumer-harm-software-industry-analysis |archive-date=2017-11-15 |access-date=2025-08-23 |website=justice.gov |publisher=U.S. Department Of Justice}}</ref> | ||
:*Overcharging consumers by $20–30 billion for Windows licenses in the 1990s by hiding costs in PC bundles.<ref name=":0" /> | |||
:*Deliberately degrading interoperability of competing software (e.g., Java, ''Netscape'') with Windows. <ref name=":0" /> | |||
:*Blocking rivals' distribution channels by signing exclusive deals with PC manufacturers and ISPs. <ref name=":0" /> | |||
===Microsoft Corp. v Commission of the European Communities (2004-2007)=== | |||
The EU began an investigation of Microsoft in 1998, following a complaint by Sun Microsystems for not disclosing some interfaces to Windows NT. During August 2001, the EU expanded the investigation to look at how streaming media technology has been integrated into Windows.<ref>{{cite news |last=McCullagh |first=Declan |date=2002-07-01 |title=EU looks to wrap up Microsoft probe |url=http://www.news.com/2100-1001_3-941090.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120907171103/http://www.news.com/2100-1001_3-941090.html |archive-date=2012-09-07 |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=CNET}}</ref> Microsoft was found guilty of illegally abusing its dominant position in the operating system market<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |date=2007-09-17 |title=EUR-Lex - 62004TJ0201 - Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) of 17 September 2007. Microsoft Corp. v Commission of the European Communities. |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62004TJ0201 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150725161632/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62004TJ0201 |archive-date=2015-07-25 |access-date=2025-08-21 |website=EUR-Lex}}</ref> in order to dominate the entertainment market and push out competitors. It did this by bundling Windows Media Player with the Windows operating system, despite them being two distinct products, allowing "that media player automatically to achieve a level of market penetration corresponding to that of the dominant undertaking’s client PC operating system, without having to compete on the merits with competing products".<ref name=":6" /> | |||
The case was settled and Microsoft was fined €497 million ($613 million) - the largest fine for abuse of a dominant position at the time{{Citation needed|reason=is this still the case?}} - as well as having to provide a version of its Windows operating system without a bundled media player<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |date=2004-03-25 |title=Microsoft hit by record EU fine |url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/03/24/microsoft.eu/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060413082435/http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/03/24/microsoft.eu/ |archive-date=2006-04-13 |access-date=2025-08-21 |website=CNN}}</ref> (called Windows XP Home Edition N<ref name="WinXPSRedmondMag2">{{cite news |last=Bekker |first=Scot |date=2005-03-28 |title=European Windows Called 'Windows XP Home Edition N' |url=http://www.redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=6625 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050407081820/http://redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=6625 |archive-date=2005-04-07 |access-date=2025-08-23 |publisher=Redmondmag.com}}</ref><ref name="WinXPSBBC">{{cite news |date=2005-03-28 |title=Microsoft and EU reach agreement |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4388349.stm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051222031525/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4388349.stm |archive-date=2005-12-22 |access-date=2025-08-23 |publisher=BBC}}</ref>). However, this ruling seems insufficient to reduce Microsoft's monopolistic control as Microsoft priced it the same as its bundled counterpart and the ruling didn't prevent them from selling Windows XP Home Edition. Consumer interest was low, and major OEMs did not preinstall XP N on their computers.<ref name="WinXPlite">{{cite news |last=Wearden |first=Graeme |date=2005-06-28 |title=Windows XP-lite 'not value for money' |url=http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39131434,00.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051102014905/http://management.silicon.com/government/0%2C39024677%2C39131434%2C00.htm |archive-date=2005-11-02 |access-date=2025-08-23 |website=Silicon.com}}</ref> | |||
See also: [[wikipedia:Microsoft_Corp._v_European_Commission|''Microsoft Corp. v European Commission'' (Wikipedia)]] | |||
: | |||
: | |||
=== | |||
=== | ===JJH Enterprises Limited (trading as ValueLicensing) v Microsoft Corporation and Others (2021-ongoing)=== | ||
UK | Valuelicensing, a UK reseller of software licenses, sued<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-11-22 |title=JJH Enterprises Limited (trading as ValueLicensing) v Microsoft Corporation and Others |url=https://www.catribunal.org.uk/cases/15705722-t-jjh-enterprises-limited-trading-valuelicensing |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250219014502/https://www.catribunal.org.uk/cases/15705722-t-jjh-enterprises-limited-trading-valuelicensing |archive-date=2025-02-19 |access-date=2025-08-23 |website=Competition Appeal Tribunal}}</ref> Microsoft for "suppressing the availability of preowned perpetual licences" and restricting customers from reselling old licenses in exchange for more favourable terms on newer, subscription-based models<ref>{{Cite news |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=2022-07-08 |title=Judge rejects another Microsoft appeal against surplus license reseller suit |url=https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/08/microsoft_valuelicensing/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220708112410/https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/08/microsoft_valuelicensing/ |archive-date=2022-07-08 |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=The Register}}</ref>, claiming £270 million in damages.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=2021-04-08 |title=UK reseller sues Microsoft for £270m in damages claiming prohibitive contracts choke off surplus Office licence supplies |url=https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/08/valuelicensing_microsoft_lawsuit/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210408123252/https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/08/valuelicensing_microsoft_lawsuit/ |archive-date=2021-04-08 |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=The Register}}</ref> In the ongoing case, Microsoft has used contradictory and inconsistent defences.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=2025-01-06 |title=Microsoft's spat with ValueLicensing limps toward 2026 showdown |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/06/valuelicensing_microsoft_trial_date/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250106143914/https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/06/valuelicensing_microsoft_trial_date/ |archive-date=2025-01-06 |access-date=2025-08-22 |website=The Register}}</ref> | ||
===Ongoing UK Lawsuit for Overcharging Users when Using non Azure Cloud Services=== | ===Ongoing UK Lawsuit for Overcharging Users when Using non Azure Cloud Services=== | ||
| Line 52: | Line 51: | ||
Facing EU and UK lawsuits, Microsoft settled with some cloud vendors but retained practices criticized as unfair.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Browne |first=Ryan |date=December 3, 2024 |title=Microsoft faces £1 billion lawsuit in UK for allegedly overcharging rival cloud firms’ customers |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/03/microsoft-overcharging-rival-cloud-firms-customers-uk-lawsuit-says.html |url-status=live |website=cnbc.com}}</ref> | Facing EU and UK lawsuits, Microsoft settled with some cloud vendors but retained practices criticized as unfair.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Browne |first=Ryan |date=December 3, 2024 |title=Microsoft faces £1 billion lawsuit in UK for allegedly overcharging rival cloud firms’ customers |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/03/microsoft-overcharging-rival-cloud-firms-customers-uk-lawsuit-says.html |url-status=live |website=cnbc.com}}</ref> | ||
=== Antitrust investigation by U.S. === | ===Antitrust investigation by U.S.=== | ||
Making it costly or technically difficult for customers to migrate data from Azure to other platforms.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Godoy |first=Jody |date=November 28, 2024 |title=Microsoft faces wide-ranging US antitrust probe |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-faces-wide-ranging-us-antitrust-probe-2024-11-27/ |website=reuters.com}}</ref> | Making it costly or technically difficult for customers to migrate data from Azure to other platforms.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Godoy |first=Jody |date=November 28, 2024 |title=Microsoft faces wide-ranging US antitrust probe |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-faces-wide-ranging-us-antitrust-probe-2024-11-27/ |website=reuters.com}}</ref> | ||
| Line 72: | Line 71: | ||
Beyond this, users specifically using both ''[[Microsoft Edge|Edge]]'' and its [[Microsoft Bing|default search engine]] will continue to see harassment at the top of the search, attempting to keep the user on the browser.{{Citation needed}} | Beyond this, users specifically using both ''[[Microsoft Edge|Edge]]'' and its [[Microsoft Bing|default search engine]] will continue to see harassment at the top of the search, attempting to keep the user on the browser.{{Citation needed}} | ||
===Disguising itself as another search engine (2025 - Present | ===Disguising itself as another search engine (2025 - Present)<!--I want to see more elaboration here - JamesTDG-->=== | ||
Currently, when a user does a web search for "[[Google]]", the search engine will disguise itself as a generic search engine that would appear to look like Google in the eyes of the average user.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Warren |first=Tom |date=Jan 6, 2025 |title=Microsoft is using Bing to trick people into thinking they’re on Google |url=https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/6/24337117/microsoft-bing-search-results-google-design-trick |access-date=Jun 21, 2025 |work=The Verge}}</ref>Disguising itself as another search engine (2025 - Present))<!--I want to see more elaboration here - JamesTDG--> | Currently, when a user does a web search for "[[Google]]", the search engine will disguise itself as a generic search engine that would appear to look like Google in the eyes of the average user.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Warren |first=Tom |date=Jan 6, 2025 |title=Microsoft is using Bing to trick people into thinking they’re on Google |url=https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/6/24337117/microsoft-bing-search-results-google-design-trick |access-date=Jun 21, 2025 |work=The Verge}}</ref>Disguising itself as another search engine (2025 - Present))<!--I want to see more elaboration here - JamesTDG--> | ||
| Line 86: | Line 85: | ||
For the first several months of this incident's height of prevalence in 2006, consumers had to pay to get their consoles fixed by Microsoft if the console was outside of its one year warranty. However, by September 2007, they chose to extend the warranty to three years from the date of original purchase, and refunded anyone who had previously paid to get this issue fixed.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Moore |first=Peter |date=2007 |title=Open Letter from Peter Moore |url=http://xbox.com/en-ca/support/petermooreletter.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071023004948/http://xbox.com/en-ca/support/petermooreletter.htm |archive-date=23 Oct 2007 |access-date=4 Jun 2025 |website=Xbox}}</ref> Judging from current and former employees' comments in the ''Xbox'' documentary, ''Power On: The Story of Xbox'', Microsoft seemed to have primarily done this to rescue the ''Xbox'' brand.<ref name=":2" /> Nonetheless, this was still beneficial to consumers who had made an investment in and enjoyed games from Microsoft's console. | For the first several months of this incident's height of prevalence in 2006, consumers had to pay to get their consoles fixed by Microsoft if the console was outside of its one year warranty. However, by September 2007, they chose to extend the warranty to three years from the date of original purchase, and refunded anyone who had previously paid to get this issue fixed.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Moore |first=Peter |date=2007 |title=Open Letter from Peter Moore |url=http://xbox.com/en-ca/support/petermooreletter.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071023004948/http://xbox.com/en-ca/support/petermooreletter.htm |archive-date=23 Oct 2007 |access-date=4 Jun 2025 |website=Xbox}}</ref> Judging from current and former employees' comments in the ''Xbox'' documentary, ''Power On: The Story of Xbox'', Microsoft seemed to have primarily done this to rescue the ''Xbox'' brand.<ref name=":2" /> Nonetheless, this was still beneficial to consumers who had made an investment in and enjoyed games from Microsoft's console. | ||
=== Xbox === | ===Xbox=== | ||
*'''Forced online activation''' | *'''Forced online activation''' | ||
:Requiring internet connectivity to set up Xbox consoles or install physical game discs, even for single-player modes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=April 12, 2021 |title=DRM or Die. How Anti-Consumer Practices Became the New Norm and the Consumers Are to Blame |url=https://cgicoffee.com/blog/2021/04/drm-or-die-anti-consumer-practices |website=}}</ref> | :Requiring internet connectivity to set up Xbox consoles or install physical game discs, even for single-player modes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=April 12, 2021 |title=DRM or Die. How Anti-Consumer Practices Became the New Norm and the Consumers Are to Blame |url=https://cgicoffee.com/blog/2021/04/drm-or-die-anti-consumer-practices |website=}}</ref> | ||
| Line 181: | Line 180: | ||
Given the scale of Windows and Office deployments, the cumulative energy consumed by collecting, transmitting, storing and processing this data across the globe is also an environmental concern. | Given the scale of Windows and Office deployments, the cumulative energy consumed by collecting, transmitting, storing and processing this data across the globe is also an environmental concern. | ||
=== '''Collaboration with surveillance''' === | ==='''Collaboration with surveillance'''=== | ||
Working with the NSA and FBI to bypass encryption (PRISM program) and access user data (Skype, Outlook).<ref name=":1" /> | Working with the NSA and FBI to bypass encryption (PRISM program) and access user data (Skype, Outlook).<ref name=":1" /> | ||
=== '''Recurring billing traps''' === | ==='''Recurring billing traps'''=== | ||
Defaulting users into subscription auto-renewals while making cancellation processes opaque.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-18 |title=Why is MS Software So Predatory? |url=https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/3869973/why-is-ms-software-so-predatory?forum=windows-all&referrer=answers |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=learn.microsoft.com}}</ref>{{Citation needed|reason=better source than just support forum}} | Defaulting users into subscription auto-renewals while making cancellation processes opaque.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-18 |title=Why is MS Software So Predatory? |url=https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/3869973/why-is-ms-software-so-predatory?forum=windows-all&referrer=answers |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=learn.microsoft.com}}</ref>{{Citation needed|reason=better source than just support forum}} | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
[[Microsoft Office 365]], an article on Microsoft's Office 365 subscription service which includes how to avoid the $30 price increase at the start. | [[Microsoft Office 365]], an article on Microsoft's Office 365 subscription service which includes how to avoid the $30 price increase at the start. | ||