A cost analysis of Vista content protection [LWN.net]

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 26, 2006 20:40 UTC (Tue) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953)
Parent article: A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Microsoft needs to be careful implementing this with the hardware manufacturers. If they are restricting the creation of Open source drivers there is an anti-trust violation.

Remember, Microsoft has already been proved to be a monopoly so no one has to try to prove that, all they need to prove is that Microsoft is using their monopoly to restrict the open market (and what else does DRM and safePC do other than restrict market access?). Heck Redhat could open a lawsuit and net millions (to spend on open source) simply by claiming Microsoft is trying to squeeze them out of the market completely by eliminating their ability to have manufacturer assisted open source drivers. Not to mention what the Europeans will do to them.

I've said it before, DRM is extremely dangerous to companies as it will be seen as monopoly tactics. Apple's at risk with their DRM as well. Even if the content providers want DRM now, some are starting to realize the implications as Apple is now in the position to dictate electronic music pricing. Which is exactly the position Microsoft will be in if they control the distribution method via their DRM on the Window's Monopoly. The content providers like the idea of DRM but once implemented they won't like that it creates monopolies that can then dictate the pricing back to them.

(Log in to post comments)

Microsoft's a monopoly... Who cares? The DOJ obviously doesn't

Posted Dec 28, 2006 13:56 UTC (Thu) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link]

The title I used above is sarcasm meant to convey my disgust with Microsoft. Yes, it has been proven to be a monopoly. Yes, there was a US Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit brought against MS for violating the Sherman Act (and/or related legislation). In fact, wasn't there another lawsuit against MS and their monopoly back in the mid-1990s?

But, this hasn't stopped Microsoft. MS is still a large company which bullies PC manufacturers, retailers, and consumers into using its prorietary software and nothing else (plus the Draconian DRM measures Dr. Gutmann mentions in his article). But, one (two?) DOJ lawsuit(s) later, and Microsoft is no worse for the wear.

Why is this? How can the DOJ successfully break up monopolies such as Standard Oil (which the Sherman Act aimed to address in 1890), The American Tobacco Company (1911), and "Ma Bell" (AT&T, 1982), yet fail to break up Microsoft? Granted, the American Tobacco Company breakup took 4 years (link), and the AT&T breakup took 8 years (link).

My guess is that the DOJ fights the battles it knows it can win, and it doesn't think it can take on Microsoft. Forgive me for getting totally far-fetched, but does anyone else here think that Microsoft's FUD has oozed into every nook and cranny of the US Government so as to cause the DOJ to pull the wool over its eyes while MS gets away with this monopoly?

I'm a staunch proponent of consumer choice, but I don't feel that average consumers really have a choice with PC operating systems. It's a crying shame that the US government fails to recognize this.