Microsoft: Difference between revisions

Line 32:

====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>

:*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" />

:*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" />

:*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" />

:*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)===

~~Faced~~ EU ~~penalties~~ for ~~bundling ''Media Player'' and ''IE''~~<ref>{{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><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>.

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)]]

===Ongoing UK Lawsuit for Blocking Resale of Preowned Licenses===

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 ====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>
+:*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" />
+:*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" />
+:*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" />
+:*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)===
-Faced EU penalties for bundling ''Media Player'' and ''IE''<ref>{{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><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>.
+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)]]
 ===Ongoing UK Lawsuit for Blocking Resale of Preowned Licenses===