Tech Discussion Microsoft and corporate anti-trust issues

[LannisterHater]

Hey wiki king, read this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corporation

[velvetfog]

I am quite familiar with that case. It changed nothing.
The settlement (according to the wiki link you provided) was as follows:

On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who will have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance. However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future. On August 5, 2002, Microsoft announced that it would make some concessions towards the proposed final settlement ahead of the judge's verdict. On November 1, 2002, Judge Kollar-Kotelly released a judgment accepting most of the proposed DOJ settlement. Nine states (California, Connecticut, Iowa, Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, Utah, Virginia and Massachusetts) and the District of Columbia (which had been pursuing the case together with the DOJ) did not agree with the settlement, arguing that it did not go far enough to curb Microsoft's anti-competitive business practices. On June 30, 2004, the U.S. appeals court unanimously approved the settlement with the Justice Department, rejecting objections that the sanctions were inadequate.

It was the Democratic Bill Clinton administration that had pursued the Microsoft antitrust suit.
When the Republican George W. Bush administration took over, they weren't interested in pursuing the matter to the point of breaking up Microsoft into separate firms the way Standard Oil and AT&T had been broken up in the past as a result of federal antitrust cases against them.

(This post was last modified: 08-01-2013, 07:08 PM by velvetfog.)

[LannisterHater]

I am quite familiar with that case. It changed nothing.
The settlement (according to the wiki link you provided) was as follows:

On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who will have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance. However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future. On August 5, 2002, Microsoft announced that it would make some concessions towards the proposed final settlement ahead of the judge's verdict. On November 1, 2002, Judge Kollar-Kotelly released a judgment accepting most of the proposed DOJ settlement. Nine states (California, Connecticut, Iowa, Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, Utah, Virginia and Massachusetts) and the District of Columbia (which had been pursuing the case together with the DOJ) did not agree with the settlement, arguing that it did not go far enough to curb Microsoft's anti-competitive business practices. On June 30, 2004, the U.S. appeals court unanimously approved the settlement with the Justice Department, rejecting objections that the sanctions were inadequate.

It was the Democratic Bill Clinton administration that had pursued the Microsoft antitrust suit.
When the Republican George W. Bush administration took over, they weren't interested in pursuing the matter to the point of breaking up Microsoft into separate firms the way Standard Oil and AT&T had been broken up in the past as a result of federal antitrust cases against them.

Microsoft has three distinct business divisions. although they didn't HAVE to break up AFTER their appeal, they did so to avoid future litigation. they are also planning on restructuring again in the near future.

[velvetfog]

Microsoft has three distinct business divisions. although they didn't HAVE to break up AFTER their appeal, they did so to avoid future litigation. they are also planning on restructuring again in the near future.

Microsoft did not break up.
Having multiple operating divisions within a corporation is not the same as a breakup of the firm. On the contrary, it is pretty much standard practice within large firms.
Most large firms arrange their internal divisions according to either their product lines (as an example, General Motors is organized into Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet and GMC divisions),
or by function (such as manufacturing and sales & marketing divisions).

Nor did Microsoft avoid future litigation.
As recently as March this year, Microsoft was ordered to pay a hefty fine to the European Union for continuing the anti-competitive practices that they had previously promised to stop doing.
Read this: EU fines Microsoft $731 million for broken promise

(This post was last modified: 08-02-2013, 11:52 AM by velvetfog.)

[LannisterHater]

yes, yes, yes...I know all about the EU thing. I said TRY to avoid litigation. and I also said break into divisions, which they were not. they didn't even break following the trial, it took some time.

I do agree with you on the innovation of newer companies and the complacency of larger corporations.

[velvetfog]

Corporations that are broken up as a result of successful anti-trust litigation against them are broken up into several separate corporations with separate owners.
The issue of divisional structure within a single corporation is not relevant.

[LannisterHater]

Corporations that are broken up as a result of successful anti-trust litigation against them are broken up into several separate corporations with separate owners.
The issue of divisional structure within a single corporation is not relevant.

I think in the context of earlier statements, it is very relevant.

[velvetfog]

Corporations that are broken up as a result of successful anti-trust litigation against them are broken up into several separate corporations with separate owners.
The issue of divisional structure within a single corporation is not relevant.

I think in the context of earlier statements, it is very relevant.

Your thinking is simply wrong.
No nation uses anti-trust laws or any other form of litigation for the purpose of influencing or dictating how a private firm organizes its internal structure.
Private companies are either left alone, made to pay fines, or broken up into several independent corporations.

[LannisterHater]

Corporations that are broken up as a result of successful anti-trust litigation against them are broken up into several separate corporations with separate owners.
The issue of divisional structure within a single corporation is not relevant.

I think in the context of earlier statements, it is very relevant.

Your thinking is simply wrong.
No nation uses anti-trust laws or any other form of litigation for the purpose of influencing or dictating how a private firm organizes its internal structure.
Private companies are either left alone, made to pay fines, or broken up into several independent corporations.

that is one of the most naive things you have ever said (written).

[velvetfog]

I think you ought to read this: --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Breakup