Feeds

DoJ document details how MS harmed consumers

Helps deal with gap in government's case

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

The essential guide to IT transformation

MS on Trial The DoJ has, at last, produced a concise summary as to why and how consumers were harmed and will continue to be harmed by Microsoft's actions. It relies on the fact that antitrust laws are based on the principle that the wilful maintenance of a monopoly harms consumers, and that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held this. The heavy footprints of monopolisation inevitably lead to consumer harm, it seems. The DoJ deals with consumer harm caused when choice is restricted or removed, and more generally, how consumers suffer as a result of Microsoft's middleware threats. By restricting what OEMs may distribute - usually by offering financial inducements in the form of so-called "market development agreements" - Microsoft has made it more costly for alternative browsers to be promoted and distributed, thereby lessening the likely choice for consumers. Contractual restrictions imposed on ISPs and others by Microsoft also restricted user choice of browsers. In addition, welding the browser to the OS increased the cost of obtaining and using non-Microsoft browsers, and generally made it more difficult. Finally, users were denied the benefits of innovation unimpeded by Microsoft's abuse of its operating system monopoly. More generally, the DoJ suggests that Microsoft's control over standards helps to maintain its OS monopoly, so removing user choice; that Microsoft will be able to control the future directions for hardware and software; and that in effect Microsoft would be able to approve or disapprove innovations by competitors, and use predation against innovations that it regards as threatening. The DoJ could have done a better job of presenting its case for consumer harm, and perhaps it will do so in the hearing on 21 September. In some respects, the DoJ has been thwarted by only being allowed 12 witnesses, since it did not have a witness to flesh out the consumer harm aspect. It does appear that there is no legal need for the DoJ to prove harm to consumers (because proof of monopolisation is sufficient to show this), but by not doing so, it has allowed Microsoft to make the considerable propaganda point that the DoJ has not demonstrated consumer harm. ® Complete Register Trial coverage

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
6 Obvious Reasons Why Facebook Will Ban This Article (Thank God)
Clampdown on clickbait ... and El Reg is OK with this
No, thank you. I will not code for the Caliphate
Some assignments, even the Bongster decline must
Kaspersky backpedals on 'done nothing wrong, nothing to fear' blather
Founder (and internet passport fan) now says privacy is precious
TROLL SLAYER Google grabs $1.3 MEEELLION in patent counter-suit
Chocolate Factory hits back at firm for suing customers
Mozilla's 'Tiles' ads debut in new Firefox nightlies
You can try turning them off and on again
Sit tight, fanbois. Apple's '$400' wearable release slips into early 2015
Sources: time to put in plenty of clock-watching for' iWatch
Facebook to let stalkers unearth buried posts with mobe search
Prepare to HAUNT your pal's back catalogue
prev story

Whitepapers

Endpoint data privacy in the cloud is easier than you think
Innovations in encryption and storage resolve issues of data privacy and key requirements for companies to look for in a solution.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Advanced data protection for your virtualized environments
Find a natural fit for optimizing protection for the often resource-constrained data protection process found in virtual environments.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.