05.17.08

Gemini version available ♊︎

Interesting Old Document About Microsoft’s Vapourware Tactics

Posted in Antitrust, Law, Microsoft, Windows at 5:57 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Is Microsoft breaking the law again?

On numerous occasions before, we wrote about and also showed examples of Microsoft’s vapourware tactics [1, 2, 3], which it speaks about openly (but in private). You might find the following exhibit [PDF] enlightening.


MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN RESPONSE TO THE
COURT’S INQUIRIES CONCERNING “VAPORWARE”

This Memorandum responds to the Court’s inquiries concerning “vaporware.”(1) While “vaporware” is sometimes used as “slang for announced software that may never materialize,”(2) and other times as “a term used sarcastically for promised software that misses its announced release date, usually by a considerable length of time,”(3) it is susceptible of other definitions as well and, apparently, has no single precise meaning.(4) But, under any definition, the hallmark of “vaporware” is a “preannouncement,” e.g., a statement, before the product is available for purchase, regarding the features or expected release date of the product. This Memorandum discusses the standards under the antitrust laws for evaluating the legality of such preannouncements.(5) As we explain below, product preannouncements do not violate the antitrust laws unless those preannouncements are knowingly false and contribute to the acquisition, maintenance, or exercise of market power.

While we welcome this opportunity to address the Court’s questions regarding the legal standards applicable to vaporware, we respectfully submit that whatever the Court’s ultimate view on this subject, that view should not influence its judgment on the sole issue presented in this proceeding: whether the entry of the proposed Final Judgment is within the reaches of the “public interest.”

The Court’s public interest determination must focus on whether the proposed Final Judgment provides a reasonable and effective means of remedying the specific antitrust violations alleged in the Complaint.(6) The Complaint in this case did not allege any violations relating to vaporware.(7) With respect to the violations that were alleged in this case, the proposed Final Judgment will provide complete and effective relief. As Professor Kenneth J. Arrow(8) concluded in his Declaration, “the proposed settlement appropriately addresses and remedies the anticompetitive effects of the practices challenged in the complaint.”(9)

Approval of the proposed Consent Decree will not in any way prevent the government from suing Microsoft in the future for antitrust violations other than those alleged in the Complaint. The government is entirely prepared to bring a case relating to vaporware if a violation of the antitrust laws can be established. Although we concluded at the time we filed the Complaint that we did not have the facts needed to support additional antitrust charges, we do not foreclose any future action if evidence comes to our attention or if market conditions change in ways that support such action. To avoid, inter alia, any possible prejudice to such potential cases, this memorandum discusses only the legal standards relating to vaporware, and does not address the government’s evaluation of the evidence in its possession that may relate to specific allegations concerning vaporware.(10)

I. Product Preannouncements and the Antitrust Laws

  1. The Elements of a Section 2 Violation

Product preannouncements generally involve unilateral conduct by the announcing firm. Therefore, they are analyzed under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, the provision of the antitrust laws that applies to unilateral anticompetitive behavior. The relevant offenses under Section 2 are monopolization and attempted monopolization. Each violation requires proof of both “exclusionary” conduct and actual or likely market impact.

“The offense of monopoly under § 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historical accident.” United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966). The second element of this test incorporates both a market effect (since acquisition or maintenance of market power must be shown) and what is commonly referred to as the requirement of “exclusionary” conduct.(11)

Attempted monopolization requires (1) the “specific intent to monopolize” and (2) “dangerous probability” that the defendant’s exclusionary conduct “would monopolize a particular market.” Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 113 S. Ct. 884, 892 (1993).

  1. Truthful Product Preannouncements Have Not Been Found To Be Exclusionary

In general, “`exclusionary’ behavior should be taken to mean conduct other than competition on the merits, or other than restraints reasonably `necessary’ to competition on the merits, that reasonably appear capable of making a significant contribution to creating or maintaining monopoly power.” 3 Phillip Areeda & Donald F. Turner, Antitrust Law § 626c, at 79 (1978). It should not include “non-exploitative pricing, higher output, innovations, improved product quality, energetic market penetration, successful research and development, cost-reducing innovations, and the like [which] are welcomed by the Sherman Act.” Id. §  626b, at 77.

In accord with this standard, courts have refused to find that product preannouncements violate the antitrust laws unless they are knowingly false. See, e.g., MCI Communications v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1129 (7th Cir.) (“These cases suggest that AT & T’s early announcement of Hi-Lo must be found to be knowingly false or misleading before it can amount to an exclusionary practice.”), modified, 1983-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) § 65,520 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 (1983); ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. IBM Corp., 458 F. Supp. 423, 442 (N.D. Cal. 1978) (declining to find antitrust liability on a product preannouncement theory because “there was nothing knowingly false about the . . . announcement”), aff’d sub nom.
Memorex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 636 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 972 (1981);
see also Ronson Patents Corp. v. Sparklets Devices, 112 F. Supp. 676, 688 (E.D. Mo. 1953)
(declining to find antitrust liability where company preannounced a product, but never actually released that product).

These holdings reflect the general view that information about products that are not yet available but will be produced in the future will be helpful to consumers as they make purchasing decisions. “[R]easonable good faith statements about research, development, and forthcoming production serve the social interest in maximizing the relevant information available to buyers.” Areeda & Turner, supra, §  738i, at 284. Because of the value of such information, commentators have endorsed the principles espoused in the holdings discussed above: “[N]o liability should attach to statements that truly reflect the monopolist’s expectations about future quality or availability where that expectation is both actually held in good faith and objectively reasonable.” Id.

  1. The Requirement of Market Impact

In discussing misleading advertising under Section 2, courts have emphasized that the practice would not violate the antitrust laws absent the requisite market impact. See Berkey Photo v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263, 288 n.41 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1093 (1980) (“[The] Sherman Act is not a panacea for all evils that may infect business life. Before we would allow misrepresentation to buyers to be the basis of a competitor’s treble damage action under § 2, we would at least require the plaintiff to overcome a presumption that the effect on competition was de minimis.”); National Ass’n of Pharmaceutical Mfrs. v. Ayerst Labs., 850 F.2d 904, 916 (2d Cir. 1988) (“[B]ecause the likelihood of a significant impact upon the opportunities of rivals is so small in most observed instances — and because the prevalence of arguably improper utterance is so great — the courts would be wise to regard misrepresentations as presumptively de minimis for § 2 purposes.” (quoting Areeda & Turner, supra, § 738a, at 279)). We are not aware of any case finding that a false product preannouncement had the required market impact.

    Intent To Deny Sales To A Competitor

The Court also has asked whether an undisclosed intent to defeat a competitor might render an otherwise truthful product preannouncement misleading so as to alter its status under the antitrust laws. Tr. at 103, 106, 109-11. The case law provides little support for finding liability on the basis of intent in the absence of underlying conduct otherwise deemed exclusionary. The law has developed to avoid a mistaken imposition of antitrust liability for legitimate competition on the merits, because desirable competitive behavior (including, e.g., the development of better products and the offering of lower prices) usually has the purpose and effect of reducing competitors’ sales. “`[I]ntent to harm rivals’ is not a useful standard in antitrust. . . . Neither is `intent to do more business,’ which amounts to the same thing. Vigorous competitors intend to harm rivals, to do all the business if they can. To penalize this intent is to penalize competition.” Ball Memorial Hosp., Inc. v. Mutual Hosp. Ins., 784 F.2d 1325, 1338-39 (7th Cir. 1986).(12) Indeed, as the Supreme Court has noted, “[e]ven an act of pure malice by one business competitor against another does not, without more, state a claim under the federal antitrust laws; those laws do not create a federal law of unfair competition or `purport to afford remedies for all torts committed by or against persons engaged in interstate commerce.’” Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 113 S. Ct. 2578, 2589 (1993) (quoting Hunt v. Crumboch, 325 U.S. 821, 826 (1945)).

II. Concerns Relating To Vaporware Do Not Justify Rejection of the Proposed Final Judgment

The Department, after thorough investigation, filed the Complaint herein alleging violations of law based on Microsoft’s licensing practices. It did not at that time find a legal basis upon which to include other claims, including vaporware, based on evidence then available to it, including documents presented to the Court in this proceeding. The government, as prosecutor, has the discretion to determine whether it believes a cognizable claim has been made out on the facts known to it. Its exercise of that discretion is not subject to this Court’s review in a Tunney Act proceeding. See In re International Bus. Machines Corp., 687 F.2d 59l (2d Cir. 1982). This Court’s role under the Tunney Act is to determine whether the proposed Final Judgment adequately remedies the “violations set forth in the complaint.” 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(2). In light of that limitation, it would be legal error to reject the proposed Final Judgment because of concerns about vaporware, which has not been alleged as a violation in this case.(13)

But it is equally important to note that a rejection of the proposed settlement, or the imposition of any conditions on its approval that are not accepted by both parties, would sacrifice the immediate and certain benefits to competition that the proposed Final Judgment will provide. As the Department’s economic expert, Nobel Laureate Kenneth J. Arrow, has observed:

The Department of Justice’s complaint against Microsoft and the resulting settlement eliminated unnecessary and artificial obstacles erected by Microsoft to disadvantage future competition. . . . [T]he complaint and proposed remedies addressed competitive issues that are critical to the success of new competition in this market. The most effective and economic point of entry for sales of IBM-compatible PC operating systems is the OEM distribution channel. New operating system software products should have unimpeded access to this channel.

Arrow Dec’l at 4-5.

The Court has conducted a searching inquiry, and will continue to have supervisory power under the Final Judgment, including the ability to sanction and remedy any violation of the Decree with contempt or other punishment it finds appropriate. The Department of Justice remains ready, willing and able to investigate all allegations of past, current or future conduct by Microsoft or any other company which may violate the antitrust laws, and to bring suit when sufficient evidence has been found to justify filing a complaint.

In the matter now before the Court, the government found such a violation, and obtained a proposed consent decree which offers immediate and needed relief to the market. Whatever else the Department may or may not be able to find and allege in the future, this proposed Final Judgment clearly is adequate to remedy the alleged violations, and should be entered.

All of the requirements of the Tunney Act have been satisfied. The Declaration of Nobel Laureate Kenneth J. Arrow and the government’s other filings in support of the proposed Consent Decree establish an ample basis for concluding that the proposed Final Judgment is in the reaches of the public interest. See United States v. Western Elec. Co., 993 F.2d 1572, 1582 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 487 (1993). We therefore urge the Court to find that the proposed settlement is in the public interest, and to enter the proposed Final Judgment forthwith.

[...]

January 27, 1995


FOOTNOTES

1. Transcript of Motions Hearing, Jan. 20, 1995 [hereinafter "Tr."] at 145.

2. Donald D. Spencer, Computer Dictionary (1992).

3. Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary 359 (1991).

4. For other definitions, see Alan Freedman, The Computer Glossary 725 (1989) (“Vaporware is software that does not exist. It usually refers to products that are advertised, but that are not ready for delivery to customers.”); Robin Williams & Steve Cummings, Jargon: An Informal Dictionary of Computer Terms 576 (1993) (“Vaporware is a product that the vendor keeps promising is about to arrive any moment (real soon now) — but it goes so long past its shipment date that no one believes it will ever really ship. Sometimes it never does. System 7 was vaporware for a while, since it took two years longer to appear than we were told. Apple’s Newton was vaporware for a long while.”).

5. We do not address specific allegations that Microsoft has used such preannouncements, or has offered “vaporware.” The government has not expressed any view regarding the validity of those allegations.

6. See Memorandum of the United States of America In Support of Motion To Enter Final Judgment and In Opposition To The Positions of I.D.E. Corporation and Amici, [hereinafter "Memorandum in Support of Motion To Enter Final Judgment"] at 7-10.

7. The government’s decision not to allege particular violations is not subject to review under the Tunney Act. See Memorandum in Support of Motion To Enter Final Judgment at 10-13. That decision, like the decision to dismiss an action filed under the antitrust laws, is committed to the discretion of the Department of Justice. See In re International Bus. Machs. Corp., 687 F.2d 591, 600-03 (2d Cir. 1982) (issuing writ of mandamus to prevent review of stipulated dismissal of an antitrust case).

8. The Court of Appeals recently reviewed an analysis by Professor Arrow in a Tunney Act proceeding, and concluded that it was “enough . . . to establish an ample factual foundation for the judgment call made by the Department of Justice and to make its conclusion reasonable. Insofar as the district court may be considered to have found the contrary, the finding was clearly erroneous.” United States v. Western Elec. Co., 993 F.2d 1572, 1582 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 487 (1993).

9. Declaration of Kenneth J. Arrow, attached to Memorandum in Support of Motion To Enter Final Judgment [hereinafter "Arrow Dec'l"] at 13.

10. Such discussion would also be inconsistent with the respective roles assigned to prosecutors and the courts. See Memorandum In Support of Motion To Enter Final Judgment at 10-13.

11. Common examples of exclusionary conduct include hoarding excess capacity, see, e.g., United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am., Inc., 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945) (L. Hand, J.); United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 110 F. Supp. 295 (D. Mass 1953), aff’d per curiam 347 U.S. 521 (1954); predatory pricing, see, e.g., Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 113 S. Ct. 2578, 2587 (1993); and certain refusals to deal without legitimate business reason, see, e.g., Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985); Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366 (1973).

12. Accord Arthur S. Langenderfer, Inc. v. S.E. Johnson Co., 917 F.2d 1413, 1422 (6th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 274 (1991); Morgan v. Ponder, 892 F.2d 1355, 1359 (8th Cir. 1989); Barry Wright Corp. v. ITT Grinnell Corp., 724 F.2d 227, 232 (1st Cir. 1983) (Breyer, J.).

13. See Memorandum in Support of Motion To Enter Final Judgment at 4-16.


Bear the quote below in mind whenever Microsoft speaks of Windows 7apourware™.

“In the face of strong competition, Evangelism’s focus may shift immediately to the next version of the same technology, however. Indeed, Phase 1 (Evangelism Starts) for version x+1 may start as soon as this Final Release of version X.”

Microsoft, internal document [PDF]

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. Virtually (i.e. Online) and for Only One Hour the EPO's Staff Representation Was Allowed to Discuss Many Lingering Concerns

    “Report on the LSCMN meeting with VP4 of 9 November 2022″ (i.e. one month ago) is being circulated this week; “On 9 November 2022,” says the union or the local officials (Staff Union of the EPO, or SUEPO for short, has overlaps), “the Local Staff Committee Munich (LSCMN) met with VP4, Ms Nellie Simon, to discuss a number of prevailing local matters in a virtual meeting which had been scheduled, as had the previous one, for one hour only.” (the usual; they intentionally don’t allocate sufficient time)



  2. [Meme] António Campinos-Controlled (EPO-Commissioned) Surveys Are Just for Show (to Help 'Validate' Lies)

    The real EPO survey is not that one conducted by (and for) António Campinos



  3. European Patent Office (EPO) on the Decline, According to the Fifth Edition of the Technologia Staff Survey

    Today we share some documents that circulated amongst EPO staff yesterday; it's about this year's staff survey that was not conducted by the EPO itself (to serve EPO management and its twisted agenda



  4. Free Software is So Robust That Its Opponents Need to Travel 12 Months Back in Time in Order to Find Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) Material

    Microsoft- and Linux Foundation-connected sites help smear or stigmatise Free software (citing hostile 'experts'); this week they borrow news from 12 months ago to make a point



  5. IDG Has Resorted to Microsoft Marketing SPAM Instead of Actual Journalism

    Microsoft puff pieces are published as "opinions", disguised as "news" while in fact serving no purpose other than marketing



  6. Open Invention Network (OIN) Protects Amazon and AWS From Activists Like Us Who Want to Abolish Software Patents Through Reforms of the Patent Systems

    The Open Invention Network (OIN) does not exist to serve the Free software community but to work against it; the latest joining (AWS) proves this



  7. Sirius ‘Open Source’ and the Money Missing From the Pension

    Sirius ‘Open Source’ is unable to cope with basic legal requirements such as sending payslips to staff (this hasn’t been done for months already!) and such issues have gone on for almost 4 years already



  8. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, December 07, 2022

    IRC logs for Wednesday, December 07, 2022



  9. Links 07/12/2022: ArcoLinux Beta 23.01 and Cryostat 2.2

    Links for the day



  10. [Meme] Where Did the Money Go?

    Sirius ‘Open Source’ became a company that cannot even do accounting right; pertinent technical employees had to do a lot of chasing for years just to get the basics rectified



  11. Evidence of Sirius ‘Open Source’ (or Sirius Corporation) Failing to Pay Pensions, Failing to Inform Staff, Not Responding to Staff

    The job my wife and I left this past Friday (after about 21 years combined) had turned sour years ago; hoping that this serves as a cautionary tale to others, we've decided to show pension lapses, lack of payslips, and excuses that accompanied that for years



  12. Links 07/12/2022: Blender 3.4 and Apple GPU Drivers Now in Asahi Linux

    Links for the day



  13. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, December 06, 2022

    IRC logs for Tuesday, December 06, 2022



  14. Links 07/12/2022: Kali Linux 2022.4, GNUnet 0.19.0, and Pgpool-II 4.4.0

    Links for the day



  15. Subsidising the Likes of Rupert Murdoch is Not Supporting Journalism

    There are yet more attempts to tax citations; not only does that make no practical or moral sense, it's being lumped in or joined together with a must-pass "defence" (military) bill in order to suppress opposition



  16. Microsoft Layoffs Again

    The company behind Windows is in a bad state, but it is being propped up by the taxpayers; if rumours are true, Microsoft might get a lot smaller next year



  17. Microsoft is Killing Hospital Patients With Its Insecure-by-design Windows Operating System

    Many people continue to needlessly die because many hospitals still foolishly deploy Windows on mission-critical life-saving machines



  18. Sirius ‘Open Source’ Failing at the Most Basic Employment Regulations

    The company we left behind last week was a repeat violator of employment laws; to make matters worse, it led to its long-term or long(time)-serving staff becoming very baffled, having to contact the pension provider for clarifications



  19. Sirius ‘Open Source’: When the Company Stops Paying Your Pension and You Don't Know Until the Pension Provider Keeps Sending Physical Post to Alert You

    Today we turn our attention to pension blunders at Sirius ‘Open Source’; in recent years even something basic like pension contributions wasn’t smooth sailing



  20. [Meme] Sirius Open Source, Closed-Minded Bossing

    At Sirius ‘Open Source’, decisions are made in the dark without consultation with staff and many things go wrong as a result; of course the culprits never hold themselves accountable



  21. Links 06/12/2022: LibreOffice 7.5 Alpha and digiKam 7.9.0

    Links for the day



  22. Rumour: Very Large Microsoft Layoffs (Another Round) Next Month, Lists Already Being Prepared





  23. Benoît Battistelli in 2015: EPO is Ready to Start Unified Patent Court (UPC), Expect UPC in 2016

    We’re almost in 2023 and UPC is being delayed again; this is what EPO President Benoît Battistelli said way back in 2015 (official video from the EPO; 3:45-4:34 cropped apart)



  24. IRC Proceedings: Monday, December 05, 2022

    IRC logs for Monday, December 05, 2022



  25. Links 06/12/2022: FreeBSD 12.4 and Inkscape 1.2.2

    Links for the day



  26. Sirius Not-So-‘Open Source’: Cannot Talk to Colleagues, Cannot Speak About Work

    Cover-up and lies became a corporate pattern at the company where I had worked since 2011; it was time to go in order to avoid cooperation in unethical activities



  27. [Meme] Guilt by Association

    Sirius ‘Open Source’ has a history of hostility towards people with disabilities; the company got sued over this, but kept the lawsuit secret



  28. That Time Sirius 'Open Source' Fired a Blind Lady While Gagging Sympathetic Staff

    Sirius 'Open Source' was taken to court after it had wrongly fired a couple of employees, one of whom was blind; this was accompanied by lies about why the staff's communication server was shut down



  29. Links 05/12/2022: Gnoppix Linux 22.12 and Armbian 22.11

    Links for the day



  30. Unified Patent Court (UPC) is “Real Soon Now!” Since 2014

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) lobby is once again forced to admit issues and delays; we've seen this time and time again for nearly a decade already


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts