Microsoft announced yesterday that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued an order extending the consent decree through
November 12, 2009. The court’s action came in response to requests by a number of states involved in the case to extend the consent decree by five years.
Microsoft published this timeline of events concerning its history with the antitrust oversight consent decree:
May 1998 - The U.S. Department of Justice and 19 states plus the District of Columbia file antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft relating to the Windows operating system and competition with Netscape in Web browsing.
October 1998 - A consolidated antitrust case against Microsoft goes to trial before Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.April 2000 - Judge Jackson rules that Microsoft unlawfully maintained a monopoly in Windows and unlawfully tied its Web browser to Windows.
June 2000 - Judge Jackson orders the breakup of Microsoft into two companies.
June 2001 - A federal appeals court unanimously affirms the monopolization ruling but overturns the tying ruling. The appeals court also reverses the breakup order and disqualifies Judge Jackson from further participation in the case due to an appearance of bias.
September 2001 - The Department of Justice announces it will no longer seek a breakup of Microsoft.
October 2001 - U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly appoints a mediator and "urges the parties to remain steadfast in their efforts to reach a mutually agreeable resolution" on remedies.November 2001 - The Department of Justice and Microsoft reach a tentative agreement to settle the antitrust case and submit a proposed settlement to the district court for approval. Four days later, nine plaintiff states join the settlement.
March 2002 - Judge Kollar-Kotelly commences a trial on a request by nine other states and the District of Columbia, led by California, for far stiffer remedies to be imposed on Microsoft.
Early 2002 - Microsoft unveils new business practices and product changes it will implement as part of the settlement with the Department of Justice, including giving users the ability to remove access to Windows features, such as the Internet Explorer browser, and see only competing products.
November 2002 -Judge Kollar-Kotelly approves the settlement between Microsoft, the Department of Justice and nine plaintiff states. Microsoft is ordered to comply with the consent decree for five years. The judge also rules against the stiffer remedies requested by nine states and the District of Columbia.
June 2004 - A federal appeals court unanimously approves the settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice, rejecting objections from Massachusetts that the sanctions are inadequate.
May 2006 - The Department of Justice announces that Microsoft has voluntarily agreed to extend until November 2009 selected provisions of the consent decree governing the licensing of client-server communications protocols.
July 2006 - Microsoft adopts a set of principles that will guide the company's future development of the Windows desktop platform after major parts of the consent decree expire.
August 30, 2007 - The Department of Justice and six states, including New York, tell the court the consent decree has achieved its goals.
October 16, 2007 - Less than a month before the consent decree is due to expire, a group of seven states led by California asks the court to extend the decree until 2012 on the grounds that it has not been successful. Two days later four other states, including New York, join the California group in seeking a five-year extension of the consent decree, but this group argues the decree has been successful and its benefits should continue.
October 19, 2007 - The Department of Justice tells the court "it does not believe the standard for such an extension has been met" and the consent decree should expire in November.
October 30, 2007 -All parties agree to temporarily extend the consent decree until Jan. 31, 2008, to give Judge Kollar-Kotelly time to consider whether to grant the California group's request for a five-year extension.
November 9, 2007 - The Department of Justice files an amicus curiae brief explaining in detail why it believes the consent decree has accomplished its goal and does not need to be extended. Visa and Weyerhaeuser also file a separate amici curiae brief opposing an extension of the consent decree.
Five years of U.S. oversight has really done nothing to curb Microsoft's predatory practices and so in some ways this ruling is almost ho-hum. Yet, the European Union has been effective. Perhaps another almost two years of U.S. oversight could help support the European Commission in its efforts to get Microsoft to comply with rulings to make its operating system more transparent to application makers.
See also:
Microsoft Remains Untrustworthy
Microsoft antitrust troubles continue in Europe with two new cases
Microsoft Consent Decree, Phase X
Four more states lobby for continued Microsoft oversight
Go to Microsoft Subnet for more news, blogs,opinion.
More Microsoft Subnet blog posts
Screenshots of Windows 7
What you can and cannot do in Server Core
Why you should upgrade to Windows Update Server (WSUS)3.0
Is Microsoft a model of green?
Desktop races towards virtualization
Win free Microsoft training from New Horizons
All Micronet blog posts
Sign up for the bi-weekly Microsoft newsletter. (Click on News/Microsoft News Alert.)
The Microsoft Subnet blog is the official blog of the Network World's Microsoft Subnet community, and is written by Online Community editor Julie Bort. Microsoft Subnet is the independent voice of Microsoft customers and is your gateway to daily Microsoft news, blogs, opinion, books, prize giveaways and more. Visit the Microsoft Subnet index page daily, and while you are there, subscribe to the Microsoft newsletter. The newsletter includes news generated by the Microsoft Subnet community as well as other Microsoft news stories published by Network World.
The Leader in Network Knowledge
Do we really want.....
Honestly do we really want to see a marketplace where MSFT isnt cranking out op systems? Whats the alternative? They do it better, faster and less stable than the next guy. Does that need to be regulated?
Alliance Datacom - Your Used Cisco Resource Center
http://www.alliancedatacom.com
operating systems ok, but the rest of it?
See Microsoft Subnet for more Microsoft-related news, blogs, security alerts.
It's not the "operating systems" that is the problem. It is the fact that 1) the company doesn't release information about their operating systems to application makers that allows those applications to work as well on Windows as Microsoft's own products do. (They follow a similar pattern with Internet Explorer in having it not fully comply with standards that Microsoft doesn't control.) 2) On top of that -- and more importantly -- if they see a software maker having success with a product, they create a competing product and bundle it into Windows for free.
This is the similar to how Standard Oil forced the railroads to drive Standard's competitors out of business by denying them access to the railway (or charging competitors exceptionally high prices for transport). The Antitrust Act was created so that a company cannot use its dominant position in one market to drive out competition in another. Ultimately a lack of competition hurts everyone.
The thing is, Microsoft really doesn't need to compete unfairly. They employ some of the brightest minds in the business. They need to create products that serve their customers well and let the products dominate the market (or not) based on merit and not because it ships free, or works better, with the operating system.
How is this any different
How is this any different than what Google is doing right now in the search game? They dominate internet search. It isnt necessarily other search engines that are hurting but the businesses that dont rank well in their ever changing mystical algorithym are forced to either close shop or pay out the nose for pay per click. Should the government step in to regulate that? I dont like the govt. regulating anymore than they have to. Do we really need them to watch the desktops?
Alliance Datacom - Your Used Cisco Resource Center
Two rights make a left?
See Microsoft Subnet for more Microsoft-related news, blogs, security alerts.
Microsoft's behavior cannot be justified or excused by using the argument that other companies are also competing ruthlessly. But that aside for a minute ... if Google gets the ok from the EU to merge with Doubleclick and it cannot resist the temptation to use Doubleclick to give preference in how it serves ads so that it squashes other online advertising venues (such as e-zines), then yes, it would be violating antitrust laws and will likely need to be stopped. If Google is giving preferential ranking in its search results to its paying customers, that's nasty business. But the market has other advertising options. A business that closes its doors because it absolutely must rank high on a Google search or it cannot attract customers probably has other problems.
Nobody except Google can
Nobody except Google can absolutely say who and why they give better treatment too. That is the problem with the G. They are vague with their expectations. And while I agree you cant put all of your eggs one basket, G is a big basket and a necessary evil of doing business online. Nobody can deny that.
Alliance Datacom - Your Used Cisco Resource Center