Maximum PC monopoly RSS Feed

Google Doesn't Think it has a Monopoly on Ebooks

Paul Lilly — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:43:19 -0500

In October of last year, Google reached a $125 million settlement as part of a three-year-old class action lawsuit accusing the search engine giant of infringing publisher and author copyrights with its library-digitizing Book Search project. But that would be far from the end of things. Last month, the Department of Justice confirmed it had launched a formal investigation into the settlement to see if it could find any evidence of anticompetitive practices, and if Google was looking for sympathy, it would be hard pressed to find any (read what Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos had to say on the matter here).

But despite all the negative publicity -- or perhaps because of it -- Google maintains it isn't doing anything wrong and denies any talk of a monopoly.

"Of course, no one wants Google to monopolize the poor orphans," said Dan Clancy, engineering director of Google Book Search. "And I don't want to be -- what's the woman in Little Orphan Annie that runs the orphanage? I'm blanking -- I don't want to be her."

Brewster Kahle, founder of the Internet Archive, which also owns a book scanning operation, sees things decidedly different than Google does. Not only will the settlement create a monopoly, but it will create two of them, Kahle says. Kahle believes Google will have a monopoly on orphans and the Book Rights Registry, as well as a second one that encompasses all rights holders who agree to join.

"Google will have permission to bring under its sole control information that has been accessible through public institutions for centuries. In essence, Google will be privatizing our libraries," Kahle wrote in the Washington Post.

Where do you stand on the issue? Hit the jump and sound off.

Russia Launches Antitrust Probe of Microsoft

Justin Kerr — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:05:23 -0500

Russia’s state run anti-monopoly service has launched a formal investigation into Microsoft over cutbacks in the supply of Windows XP. The agency believes that Microsoft has violated antimonopoly legislation by intentionally limiting the stock of Windows XP to Russia in both retail, and OEM editions which come preinstalled on new PC’s. Analysts claim that Windows Vista continues to be available, while the ongoing demand for XP both by the public, and the government, remains unsatisfied.

Microsoft has yet to formally address the issue, but according to the Moscow regional office, nobody from the anti-monopoly service has tried to contact them. "We (have) always answered antimonopoly service questions in full and intend to continue this practice in future," Microsoft spokeswoman Marina Levina said by telephone. Full scale investigations by the antimonopoly service in Russia are rare, and Microsoft will be given more details by July 24th.

The accusations being made in Russia are drastically different than previous antitrust cases leveled by the EU and USA. In both these cases, the complaints were focused on software bundling for which it was fined $708 million in 2004 by the EU.

Could Microsoft be intentionally limiting Windows XP supply in Russia to help push Vista?

Intel Could Face 1.3 Billion in Fines at the Hands of the European Union

Justin Kerr — Sat, 02 May 2009 20:14:58 -0500

Let it not be said that the European Union is playing favorites when it picks on Microsoft. The powerful antitrust regulators have now set their sights squarely on Intel, and the fines could be much worse. The commission began investigating Intel’s sales practices in late 2000 when AMD filed its initial complaint. Both chip makers are US based, but European regulators are historically much more aggressive at punishing monopolistic behavior than their American counterparts.

The chip maker has allegedly been accused of giving large rebates to computer manufacturers and retail chains to carry Intel exclusively, or in some cases, to downplay the AMD offerings. In some situations, Intel is even accused of offering server chips below cost to help corner the market. Intel denied any wrong doing and according to Intel spokesmen Robert Manetta, “Over all, Intel’s conduct is lawful, pro-competitive and beneficial to consumers.” Intel has every right to be concerned over the investigation however, since the fines imposed are rumored to dwarf those faced by Microsoft. In the 2004 EU antitrust verdict against Microsoft, the software giant faced a fine of close to $663 million US. Intel on the other hand could be facing a penalty of $1.3 billion or more according to experts.

Intel currently controls around 81.9 percent of the global market for CPU’s, while AMD scrapes by with only 17.7 percent. A guilty ruling could put Intel into further hot water after being found guilty of anti competitive practices in South Korea less than a year ago. They are appealing the $19.5 million fine, but this is chump change compared to the $3.6 billion penalty the European union is capable of leveling.

Is Intel abusing it’s power?

Time Warner Working to Shut Down Local Providers of Affordable Broadband

Andy Salisbury — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:28:29 -0500

Well, it looks Time Warner’s bad streak is far from over – it wouldn’t just end with their undeserved feeling of superiority. In the small city of Wilson, North Carolina, they’re working to destroy local Internet providers, just so that they can inject their own overpriced offering.

Available today in Wilson, NC, you can get expanded basic cable with 81 channels, 10Mbps (download and upload) Internet service, and digital phone service with unlimited long distance to the U.S. and Canada for $99.95. A similar package from Time Warner comes with six less channels, lower upload speeds and costs $137.95 as an introductory rate (which will no doubt skyrocket after a few months). But now, with some help from the North Carolina State Senate, Time Warner is working a bill that will potentially cripple or ban local service, and even prevent local services from getting any funds from the broadband portion of the stimulus package.

In response, the city has spoken out big time against the move, creating a blog that’s pushing for the state government to prevent the bill. Brian Bowman, Wilson’s Public Affairs Manager writes, “I have a 10Mbps up/down connection at my house. Can’t get half that from the cable company. I buy it directly from the City of Wilson. After less than a year of residential service, almost 3,000 Wilson citizens are subscribing to Wilson’s fiber optic network. Local businesses can get up to one Gbps.” He continues, “Bottom line, these companies are using your state lawmakers to protect monopolies. It was wrong in 2007 when a similar bill died in the house and it’s wrong today.”

Honestly, Time Warner. Have you no shreds of decency? This is genuinely despicable behavior.

Image Credt: Time Warner Cable

When Should We Start to Worry About a Google Monopoly?

Paul Lilly — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:12:59 -0600

Ping any power user's PC and there's a good chance you'll find he/she is using Google for search queries (who isn't?), Gmail for at least one email account, and maybe even Google Desktop. Throw in Google Apps and all the rest of Google's offerings and it's not hard to see we're living in a GWorld, but at what point does the company become too big?

This is the question raised by CNet, who points out that Google avoided one antitrust lawsuit by abandoning a proposed advertising pact with Yahoo, only to recently be hit with another by TradeComet.com. Such is the price of growth, which has seen Google take a 36.5 percent to 30.5 percent market share advantage over Yahoo in July 2005 and increase it to 63 percent versus 21 percent currently.

"You almost feel sorry for Google," said Danny Sullivan, editor in chief of Search Engine Land. "They're doing a good job and people are turning to them. But when they pass 70 percent share, people are going to be uncomfortable about Google becoming a monopoly."

Jeff Atwood, a co-founder of Stack Overflow, says he has no ill feelings toward Google, but is definitely concerned about where the company will be in four years. "A world in which there is no competition strikes me as unhealthy," Atwood said.

Is Google close to becoming a monopoly? Hit the jump and post your thoughts.

AMD: Too Needed to Fail

Tom Halfhill — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:00:00 -0500

AMD continues to suffer through corporate misery, most recently by losing almost $1.2 billion in a single quarter, forcing the replacement of CEO Hector Ruiz with his subordinate, Dirk Meyer. If AMD collapses and Intel becomes the only major vendor of PC processors, will prices soar?

Unfortunately, monopolies usually do inflate prices. They also retard progress. AMD stimulates Intel to price its processors more aggressively and develop better processors. Without AMD, we might not have 64-bit x86 processors today or PC processors with integrated memory controllers. Ri

ght now, we’d probably be looking forward to the first quad-core x86 processors instead of the first eight-core chips.

Behind AMD, there isn’t much competition. In third place is VIA Technologies, a Taiwanese company with a small x86 design team in Texas. VIA doesn’t challenge Intel’s high-performance PC and server processors, as AMD does. Instead, VIA sells low-power x86 chips. But even at the bottom of the barrel, VIA scrapes for a measly 2 percent market share, and Intel’s new Atom is surprisingly stiff competition.

Too bad AMD isn’t a big Wall Street bank. Then the Federal Reserve could bail it out.

Actually, a government rescue would make more sense for AMD than it does for most banks. There are thousands of banks, but only two large companies making PC processors. Overnight, AMD’s demise would create a monopoly that’s almost impossible for another company to break.

Oddly, monopoly status could harm Intel’s business plans. Contrary to popular belief, U.S. law doesn’t forbid monopolies—it merely forbids companies from using monopoly power to dominate other markets. If Intel gains a monopoly in PC processors, any move toward dominance in other processor markets might be challenged in court. Intel has enough legal problems already with lawsuits alleging anticompetitive practices. Monopoly status could prevent Intel from diversifying in important ways.

Therefore, even Intel has reasons to keep AMD alive. PC users do, too. AMD isn’t “too big to fail,” but it might be too needed to fail.

Tom Halfhill was formerly a senior editor for Byte magazine and is now an analyst for Microprocessor Report.

Lawsuits Target iPhone Bricking

Erin Simon — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:34:24 -0500

Most cellphones locked to a particular cellular network, so that carriers can leverage consumers to use their service by subsidizing the cost of the device. For iPhones, that network is AT&T's, and the cell company pays a hefty premium for its monopoly on Apple customers. Hackers have found ways to unlock iPhones, however, as well as adding additional applications. Unlocking cell phones is specifically exempted from the DMCA's prohibition on reverse engineering, so several thousand people unlocked their iPhones. Apple's latest iPhone software update rendered unlocked phones unusable even on AT&T's network, a move referred to as 'bricking' the phones. This has understandably pissed some iPhone owners off, leading two of them to file separate class-action lawsuits against Apple and AT&T.

The first by a few days, Tim Smith, alleges California state law antitrust and unfair competition claims, saying that Apple used its monopoly power to inflate iPhone prices and refusing to provide warranty service on bricked phones.

The second alleges violations of federal antitrust law, including the Sherman Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Telecommunications Act. It emphasizes Apple's statement before the 1.1.1 update that bricked unlocked phones that the unauthorized software could “cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software, which will likely result in the modified iPhone becoming permanently inoperable when a future Apple-supplied iPhone software update is installed.” The complaint takes this as evidence that Apple intentionally disabled unlocked phones, and then refused warranty service on them, which the plaintiff says are unlawfully anticompetitive.

Office SP3 Giveth Security but Taketh Away Plenty [Updated]

Mark Soper — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:01:53 -0500

Monday, Microsoft introduced Service Pack 3 for Office 2003. This 118MB download is packed full of updates, including both previous service packs and many additional updates. As usual, Microsoft says the update fixes issues involving the "big three" concerns for any Windows user: security, stability, and performance. But, what will you lose in the process?

Goodbye, Legacy Files, Goodbye!

Install SP3, and Office 2003 blocks access to a bunch of file formats, including Lotus 1-2-3 and Quattro spreadsheets, .DIF and .SLK database files, PowerPoint presentations predating PowerPoint 97; very old versions of Word for Windows (1.x, 2.x) and Macintosh (4.x, 5.x) files, CorelDraw image files (.cdr), and others. Mama Microsoft says these filetypes present various security risks. The problem is, you might depend upon Office 2003 for access to these files. Fortunately, if you're not afraid of the Windows Registry (I recommend respect, but not fear), you can fiddle your system to enable Office 2003 post-SP3 to use these files. See Knowledge Base article 938810 for details.

What Else Is Gone?

Here are just three examples of changes that might cause you grief at home or the office:

Fast Saves has left the building. It may be the fastest way to save a file, but Fast Saves leaves in metadata, such as comments ("this paragraph is my idiot boss's idea") that might lead to security issues (like losing your job). Can you remove the metadata yourself? Yes, you can. Does Microsoft trust you to do it? Not anymore. Are you surprised? Probably not.
Some add-ins and ActiveX controls won't work as expected. Don't like it? The workaround reduces security (of course).
Microsoft Document Imaging gets broken by SP3, but you can fix it - again.

For links to all of the changes, good, bad, and ugly, see the Description of Office 2003 SP3 page.

Should You Install SP3?

Office 2003 SP3 looks like a really mixed bag. If you (or your company) access legacy data files, installing SP3 will create big headaches. And, even if you don't, other changes in SP3 have the potential to make users and system administrators alike reach for their favorite pain reliever. Install SP3 at home, and you might find yourself short of playtime while you fix problems.

Before you install SP3, take the time to read all of the notes - and keep in mind that the only way to banish SP3 from your system if you change your mind later is to uninstall Office 2003 and reinstall it. Ouch! As for me, I'm going to wait a while. Microsoft's been known to issue revised versions of its service packs - and this one looks like a prime candidate for second thoughts from Redmond.

The Office 2003 SP3 download page has links to previous service packs and fixes, so you can choose the updates you need yourself.

[the following section was added 9-23-07]

Upgrading to SP3 and Keeping Your Legacy File Options Open - the Easy Way

You (or your company) may decide that the upgrade to Office 2003 SP3 is worthwhile, but if you need continued access to legacy file formats that SP3 kicks to the curb, there are a couple of ways around the problem without tinkering with the Windows Registry:

1. Use a standalone file conversion program, such as:

DataViz's Conversions Plus. The new version is Windows Vista (and XP) compatible, and can convert virtually all legacy file formats that Office 2003 will block after the SP3 upgrade, including MacOS files (if you need to read Mac-formatted floppy discs, you also need MacDrive 7).
Advanced Computer Innovation's File Merlin. File Merlin also supports virtually all legacy file formats, and the company also offers online conversions.

2. Run a second office suite and use it mainly for conversions, such as:

OpenOffice 2.x. See Chapter 3 of the OpenOffice 2.0 documentation for a list of file formats supported.
Corel WordPerfect Office X3. To see a list of file formats supported by WordPerfect Office X3, open the Corel support page, enter 757264 in the text field, and click the link provided.