US antitrust laws debate: Do software makers have to protect rivals?

Farid

Artist formely known as Vysez
Veteran
Supporter
The article is not long nor does it bring many points to the table, but it still can be discussion worthy to some, I guess.
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/06/do_software_mak.html
In "Microsoft Search Compromise Could Hinder Innovation," Boston University law professor Keith Hylton raised the issue of how the government's case against Microsoft appears to have expanded antitrust law to include an obligation on the part of software companies to protect rivals.

This is not an endorsement of Microsoft's behavior or criticism of Google's complaint about how Vista handles search. Rather, it's an observation about the possible direction of future antitrust lawsuits.

The idea that dominant software companies -- those against which a plausible antitrust suit might be brought -- could face legal jeopardy if their code puts a rival at a disadvantage is intriguing. It suggests that the antitrust law now includes an implicit endorsement of openness.
 
Isn't this the exact same discussion really that we already had regarding the inclusion of Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player in Windows?
 
"It's not done until Lotus won't run"

Man, that's some old school techie doggerel right there.

I think as long as MS is the 800lb gorilla in the market (say, north of 70%?) then yes they have an obligation to share api info in a timely manner so as not to leverage their OS monopoly against non-OS applications to favor their own.

But, y'know, there's some danger of unfairness there too. You do have to wonder if IBM was unfairly screwed out of being king of PCs by being overy concerned and preoccupied with all the restrictions on them. Anti-trust law also isn't about turning winners into losers.
 
Back
Top