|
|||
I'm far from being an "Anyone But Microsoft" person; I use what works and I've been using Microsoft products for a long time. While they are not necessarily the absolute best products of their kind that one could conceive of, I stopped looking for ultimates a long time ago. Their stuff works and it gets the job done -- and that's all I ask from anything. I have thought for a long time that arguments against Microsoft bundling things into their operating systems were incorrect. So I don't think they should have been prosecuted for putting Netscape out of business. That was just competition, and I don't consider it to have been "unfair" competition What they should have been prosecuted for was unfair and exclusionary licensing. That was what resulted in the first consent decree, and it should have been the subject of the antitrust suit. And Microsoft's current attempt to switch to a subscription basis is a blatant use of market monopoly to raise prices. It would only be legal if it was revenue-neutral, but Microsoft itself says that's not the case and fully expects revenue to rise because of it. There's no two ways about this: for all the double-talk about "simplification", the reason for making this change is to create a guaranteed and larger revenue stream for Microsoft, and the only reason they'll be able to get away with it is because there are no real alternatives for their customers. (Sorry, Mac and Linux fans, I stand by that statement.) It is not illegal to be a monopoly. (A lot of people don't realize that.) There's no question that Microsoft is a monopoly within the definition given by the law. A monopoly doesn't have to have 100% market share; rather, it has to have enough of a market share so that it has the ability to unilaterally raise prices outside of market forces. If it then does so, it is in violation of the law -- and that's precisely what Microsoft is trying to do with this new "software as service" concept. Putting it off for a few months is no victory; the only victory will be if the old and new licensing plans coexist, permitting their customers to decide for themselves which to use. Which is why I think that these two news events are actually cause-and-effect. The licensing plan wasn't postponed because of customer complaints (despite what this article says). Microsoft no longer needs to care what its customers think (another good definition of "monopoly"). It was postponed because of the antitrust suit. Microsoft is now committed to a new phase of their antitrust trial which will include a new examination of behavior, and their new licensing plan is a blatant violation of antitrust law and would surely have come up in court had it been in effect when the trial resumed. A delay until next July may put it beyond the scope of the court hearings -- or at least, I think that's what Microsoft is hoping. The Feds should not be fooled; the details of the plan should become an issue in the trial. (discussion in progress) |
|||
