Microsoft: Difference between revisions
NotARobot06 (talk | contribs) copying the info on the Microsoft's anticompetitive practices page verbatim. formatting is a mess so I will promptly fix it |
NotARobot06 (talk | contribs) move lawsuits to anticompetitive practices heading (expansion needed) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
===Anti-competitive practices=== | ===Anti-competitive practices=== | ||
*'''Monopolistic bundling''' | *'''Monopolistic bundling''' | ||
: | : | ||
*'''Exclusionary contracts''' | *'''Exclusionary contracts''' | ||
:Blocking rivals' distribution channels by signing exclusive deals with PC manufacturers and ISPs. <ref name=":0"></ref> | :Blocking rivals' distribution channels by signing exclusive deals with PC manufacturers and ISPs. <ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=January 25, 2002 |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 |website=justice.gov |publisher=Department Of Justice}}</ref> | ||
*'''Sabotaging competitors''' | *'''Sabotaging competitors''' | ||
:Deliberately degrading interoperability of competing software (e.g., Java, ''Netscape'') with Windows. <ref name=":0"></ref> | :Deliberately degrading interoperability of competing software (e.g., Java, ''Netscape'') with Windows. <ref name=":0"></ref> | ||
*'''Predatory pricing''' | *'''Predatory pricing''' | ||
:Offering IE for free to undercut ''Netscape'', later ruled anticompetitive. <ref name=":1"></ref> | :Offering IE for free to undercut ''Netscape'', later ruled anticompetitive. <ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last= |first= |date= |title=Microsoft Antitrust Case |url=https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/management/microsoft-antitrust-case/ |url-status=live |website=corporatefinanceinstitute.com}}</ref> | ||
===Cloud computing monopoly abuse=== | ===Cloud computing monopoly abuse=== | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
*Priced ''MS-DOS'' significantly lower than competitors, making it the default choice for PC makers.{{Citation needed}} | *Priced ''MS-DOS'' significantly lower than competitors, making it the default choice for PC makers.{{Citation needed}} | ||
*Launched ''Windows 1.0'' in 1985, as a graphical extension of ''MS-DOS''. They had over 90% of the PC market by the 1990's.<ref>{{Cite web |date=January 29, 2002 |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 |website=justice.gov }}</ref> | *Launched ''Windows 1.0'' in 1985, as a graphical extension of ''MS-DOS''. They had over 90% of the PC market by the 1990's.<ref>{{Cite web |date=January 29, 2002 |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 |website=justice.gov }}</ref> | ||
*Allegedly used "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics; adopting open standards, extending them with proprietary features, and then pushing competitors out.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |date=January 25, 2002 |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 |website=justice.gov}}</ref> | *Allegedly used "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics; adopting open standards, extending them with proprietary features, and then pushing competitors out.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |date=January 25, 2002 |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 |website=justice.gov}}</ref> | ||
*Charging higher fees for running ''Windows Server'' on rival clouds (e.g., ''AWS'', ''Google Cloud'') versus ''Azure''.<ref>{{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 |website=CNBC}}</ref> | *Charging higher fees for running ''Windows Server'' on rival clouds (e.g., ''AWS'', ''Google Cloud'') versus ''Azure''.<ref>{{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 |website=CNBC}}</ref> | ||
| Line 75: | Line 74: | ||
*Studies estimated that their monopoly led to consumers being overcharged by as much as 30 billion dollars in the 1990s.<ref name=":6" /> | *Studies estimated that their monopoly led to consumers being overcharged by as much as 30 billion dollars in the 1990s.<ref name=":6" /> | ||
== | == Anticompetitive Practices == | ||
=== | === US Department of Justice, U.S. v. Microsoft Corp. (1998-2001) === | ||
In a major antitrust case brought by the ''US Department of Justice'', ''U.S. v.'' Microsoft Corp'''''.''','' 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001),<ref name=":5" /> Microsoft argued that there was no barrier to entry in the market they were in. A central issue at that time was whether Microsoft could bundle the web browser ''Internet Explorer'' with the Microsoft Windows operating system. The ''District Court'' stated the following in the court case: <blockquote>"The District Court condemned a number of provisions in Microsoft's agreements licensing Windows to OEMs, because it found that Microsoft's imposition of those provisions (like many of Microsoft's other actions at issue in this case) serves to reduce usage share of ''Netscape''<nowiki/>'s browser and, hence, protect Microsoft's operating system monopoly."</blockquote>The court specifically identified three main license restrictions for [[Original Equipment Manufacturers]] (OEMs) that were considered problematic: | In a major antitrust case brought by the ''US Department of Justice'', ''U.S. v.'' Microsoft Corp'''''.''','' 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001),<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |date=2001-06-28 |title=U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110413112825/https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |archive-date=2011-04-13 |access-date=2025-08-19 |website=JUSTIA U.S. Law}}</ref> Microsoft argued that there was no barrier to entry in the market they were in. A central issue at that time was whether Microsoft could bundle the web browser ''Internet Explorer'' with the Microsoft Windows operating system. The ''District Court'' stated the following in the court case:<blockquote>"The District Court condemned a number of provisions in Microsoft's agreements licensing Windows to OEMs, because it found that Microsoft's imposition of those provisions (like many of Microsoft's other actions at issue in this case) serves to reduce usage share of ''Netscape''<nowiki/>'s browser and, hence, protect Microsoft's operating system monopoly."</blockquote>The court specifically identified three main license restrictions for [[Original Equipment Manufacturers]] (OEMs) that were considered problematic: | ||
#The prohibition upon the removal of desktop icons, folders, and Start menu entries | #The prohibition upon the removal of desktop icons, folders, and Start menu entries | ||
| Line 95: | Line 89: | ||
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." | ||
=== 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>. | |||
=== Ongoing UK Lawsuit for Blocking Resale of Preowned Licenses === | |||
UK lawsuit alleging inflated software prices by blocking resale of preowned licenses and pushing subscription models like ''Microsoft 365''(''365'') | |||
=== Ongoing UK Lawsuit for Overcharging Users when Using non Azure Cloud Services === | |||
UK lawsuit alleges ''Windows Servers'' users were overcharged when using non ''Azure '' cloud services<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gerken |first=Tom |date=2024-12-03 |title=Microsoft faces £1bn class action case in UK over software prices |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20wjnxr5ldo |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241203111042/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20wjnxr5ldo |archive-date=2024-12-03 |access-date=2025-08-21 |website=BBC}}</ref> | |||
==Controversies== | |||
===Windows 3.1 AARD code=== | |||
[[File:Windows 3.10.068 setup AARD code.png|alt=Windows 3.1 beta setup with a gray square in the middle in red text coloring that says "Non-fatal error detected: error #4D53 (Please contact Windows 3.1 beta support.). Press ENTER to continue"|thumb|Windows 3.1 AARD code]] | |||
Users trying to install a beta release of Windows 3.1 on a machine running [[wikipedia:DR-DOS|DR DOS]] would receive an error message stating "'''Non-fatal error detected: error #4D53 (Please contact Windows 3.1 beta support . )'''", the error code was discovered by Geoff Chappell on April 17 1992<ref>{{Cite web |last=Chappell |first=Geoff |date=8 May 1999 |title=AARD code |url=https://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/windows/archive/aard/index.htm?tx=57 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240112155815/https://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/windows/archive/aard/index.htm?tx=57 |archive-date=12 Jan 2024 |access-date=16 Aug 2025 |website=Geoff Chappell, Software Analyst}}</ref> | |||
===Xbox 360 Defect - The "Red Ring of Death"<!-- I don't know for sure if we should have a dedicated Company article for Xbox, or if we should just redirect red links for Xbox to this article (Microsoft). Personally, I think what they do is MS's responsibility because MS is the parent company, so Xbox's issues should be mentioned here. Either way- I'm just going to place this info here for now for folks to edit or change appropriately. -->=== | ===Xbox 360 Defect - The "Red Ring of Death"<!-- I don't know for sure if we should have a dedicated Company article for Xbox, or if we should just redirect red links for Xbox to this article (Microsoft). Personally, I think what they do is MS's responsibility because MS is the parent company, so Xbox's issues should be mentioned here. Either way- I'm just going to place this info here for now for folks to edit or change appropriately. -->=== | ||
{{Main|Bumpgate}} | {{Main|Bumpgate}} | ||
| Line 124: | Line 132: | ||
!Aftermath | !Aftermath | ||
!Related Article | !Related Article | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Resetting primary browser | |Resetting primary browser | ||
| Line 159: | Line 149: | ||
|Users have reported on frequent occasions that Edge has imported user data from browsers such as ''Chrome'' and ''Firefox'' without first requesting consent from the user.<ref>[https://www.komando.com/news/microsoft-edge-caught-importing-data/ "''Microsoft'' caught importing data before you give the OK"] - komando.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref><!-- Could we get another source added here? --> | |Users have reported on frequent occasions that Edge has imported user data from browsers such as ''Chrome'' and ''Firefox'' without first requesting consent from the user.<ref>[https://www.komando.com/news/microsoft-edge-caught-importing-data/ "''Microsoft'' caught importing data before you give the OK"] - komando.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref><!-- Could we get another source added here? --> | ||
|Unknown if it still occurs<!-- Hey can someone verify if it still is happening? --> | |Unknown if it still occurs<!-- Hey can someone verify if it still is happening? --> | ||
| | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 202: | Line 186: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | | ||
=== Bing web search === | ===Bing web search=== | ||
==== Attempting to harm competing web browsers ==== | ====Attempting to harm competing web browsers==== | ||
|2023 - Unknown | |2023 - Unknown | ||
|When doing a web search for an alternative web browser through ''[[Microsoft Bing|Bing]]'', ''[[Microsoft]]''<nowiki/>'s in-house developed [[wikipedia:Search_engine|search engine]] that is also used as the default for ''[[Microsoft Edge|Edge]]'', the [[wikipedia:Search_engine|search engine]]'s AI will attempt to bury the search results for the web browser from the user.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hollister |first=Sean |date=Jun 6, 2023 |title=Microsoft has no shame: Bing spit on my ‘Chrome’ search with a fake AI answer |url=https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/6/23736289/microsoft-bing-chrome-search-fake-ai-chatbot |access-date=Jun 21, 2025 |work=The Verge}}</ref> | |When doing a web search for an alternative web browser through ''[[Microsoft Bing|Bing]]'', ''[[Microsoft]]''<nowiki/>'s in-house developed [[wikipedia:Search_engine|search engine]] that is also used as the default for ''[[Microsoft Edge|Edge]]'', the [[wikipedia:Search_engine|search engine]]'s AI will attempt to bury the search results for the web browser from the user.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hollister |first=Sean |date=Jun 6, 2023 |title=Microsoft has no shame: Bing spit on my ‘Chrome’ search with a fake AI answer |url=https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/6/23736289/microsoft-bing-chrome-search-fake-ai-chatbot |access-date=Jun 21, 2025 |work=The Verge}}</ref> | ||