New Blow for Microsoft in EU Row 341
twitter writes "The BBC is reporting on a stinging rebuke to Microsoft and their last defensive move in the EU anti-trust trials. Boston district court judge Mark Wolf accused Microsoft of trying to 'circumvent and undermine' European Law by requesting Novell documents. The story reminds us that last month, a federal judge in California denied subpoenas of Oracle and Sun for the same reasons, that a New York judge is currently considering a request against IBM and that Microsoft will be appealing their March 2004 conviction next week and may face millions of dollars of fines a day. New complaints were made just two months ago."
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
You're right that the charge is weak in isolation because it couldn't establish Microsoft as a monopoly by itself. However, it is useful in combination with all the other charges that have been levied against them, because it provides yet another example of the abuse that Microsoft has already been proven to engage in.
In other words, this charge says "not only have they formerly abused their monopoly (which has already been proven), but they're still doing it, willfully disregarding the previous ruling!"
Re:DAMMIT. (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft approaches an American court and says, in essence: Please force company so-and-so (in this case Novell, in another case it was Sun and Oracle) to render a number of documents to us. Reason? Well, we are involved in a lawsuit in Europe, and these documents have been used there in some context or other, but it was ruled that we had no right to look at them.
The court then replies: So what? European courts have their own mechanisms. The only basis for your demand is that you don't like the outcome of those mechanisms and want an American court to interfere with the European proceedings. It would improper for us to grant you that wish.
Re:Why not subpoena in Europe? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
The EU can see this and wishes to stop it.
They can stop it because it is illegal to use monopoly powers in one area to extend that monopoly in other areas, ie media production and distribution.
Re:The EU justice system (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why not subpoena in Europe? (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't a trial (Score:3, Informative)
The trial is long over and MS lost. This is not a trial, but about whether MS is conforming to the judgement handed down or not.
Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah! (Score:3, Informative)
There might be hope after all.
Re:The secret of Microsoft (Score:4, Informative)
True, but irrelevant. Most people don't use Apple computers for specialised apple-only things. They use Apple computers for browsing, office use... etc. For this reason they are part of the general desktop computer market.
Apparently law undertstanding is pretty flexible if you're willing to put it to a critical analysis.
No, actually; the law is pretty clear.
You can claim Windows has a dominant position on PC's, PC's is just a special case of a programmable electronic device, just like Apple Macintosh is a special case of a personal computer machine.
Windows isn't dominant on electronic devices that accept an OS as a whole, so from that point of view they are suddenly not a monopoly, just like you claim Apple isn't a monopoly since you look at the whole PC market and not just the Macintosh computers market.
No. You don't use general electronic devices for things like office software. There is a recognised desktop computer market that does not include mobile phones or calculators or televisions.
Also you become a monopoly if you have a dominant position you say, what % is that share that makes it a dominant position? If Apple turns out successful in time, could you be really nice, please, and let them know at which % they should turn the policy up side down and immediately dismantle their OS in pieces.
The % at which they would need to be controlled (or at least monitored) is the % at which they can use their market share to gain unfair leverage in other markets. That is what the law says.
Do you know what this reminds me of. The Analog Hole proposal. The same those Slashdot users that flame MS on being monopolistic and how this is so different from the position Linux and Apple is, were pointing out how ridiculous it is to have DRM on "consumer" devices" but no DRM on "professional" devices (so they can do their work).
I am not flaming MS for being a monopoly. I am also not personally troubled by DRM.
What concerns me is abuse of monopoly, or gaining that monopoly by unfair means.
There is nothing at all wrong with a monopoly fairly gained and maintained through open competition.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:1, Informative)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/c
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Section headings from the downloadable PDF include:
# Microsoft has Designed its Multimedia Product to Exclude Competitors and Extend its Monopoly Power
# Microsoft has Used its Monopoly Power and Anticompetitive Tactics to Try to Defeat Quicktime
# Microsoft Repeatedly Pressured Apple to Give Up Quicktime and Cede the Multimedia Playback Market to Microsoft
# to Thwart Quicktime, Microsoft Employed Punitive and Exclusionary Actions
# The Technical Problems and Misleading Error Messages Introduced by Microsoft Impair Quicktime's Performance and Impede Apple's Ability to Compete
# Original Equipment Manufacturers and Independent Software Vendors Fear Reprisal from Microsoft if their Business Conduct does not Conform to Microsoft's Wishes
There are far too many examples of monopoly-abusing business practices to quote them all, but here are a few from the main PDF [usdoj.gov]:
From paragraph 77: "As recounted in the sworn deposition of Phil Schiller and Tim Schaaf, Microsoft repeatedly pressured Apple to abandon its business of providing software that enables users to view multimedia content on their computers. In return, Microsoft offered Apple the much smaller portion of the market for software tools used to create multimedia content. Microsoft made it clear that if Apple refused to relinquish the playback market, Microsoft would use its monopoly power to drive Apple out of the entire multimedia market." See subsequent paragraphs for how they went about this.
From paragraph 97: "... Microsoft took several steps to sabotage QuickTime. These included creating misleading error messages and introducing technical bypasses that deprived QuickTime of the opportunity to process certain types of multimedia files. In some instances users were left with the false impression that QuickTime was not functioning properly"
From paragraph 104: "Microsoft has used undocumented changes to the Windows registry to impair the ability of QuickTime to play numerous multimedia file types. In some cases, Internet Explorer 4.0 bypasses QuickTime and uses Microsoft software to play a multimedia file from a Web server. For many formats the Microsoft software is not able to process the file at all. In other cases, the Microsoft multimedia software will play the file with a severly degraded quality."
From paragraphs 108,109: "Microsoft has caused misleading error messages to appear for consumers who used QuickTime for various file formats. For example, ... Under certain conditions, an error dialog message would pop up when the user tried to gain access to types of media files, such as a QuickTime movie file, which were not associated with [Microsoft's] ActiveMovie. The Windows operating system would then ask the usser if he wished to reconfigure his system, suggesting that there was a problem that the consumer should fix although no actual error had occurred. If the user selected 'yes', Windows would reconfigure the system to select Microsoft's ActiveMovie instead of QuickTime -- even though QuickTime was capable of running the movie file. From the point forward, Internet Explorer would launch the ActiveMovie player whenever the consumer clicked on a file containing a QuickTime movie. This would cause problems for certain multimedi files because the ActiveMovie plater could only process a subset of the file formats that QuickTime could process. If a file could not be processed by ActiveMovie, an error message would appear telling the user that the player is not available -- even though QuickTime was capable of operating with the file. This could mislead consumers into believing that QuickTime was not operating properly.
From paragraphs 125,126: "At the conclusion of the meeting [between Apple and Compaq, to discuss Compaq bundling Apple's
Re:I still don't get it (Score:4, Informative)
The article is inacurate on one crucial point (Score:2, Informative)
<p>
<i>Brussels has ordered Microsoft to open up its software code to rivals</i>
<p>
Wrong. One of the demand is that Microsoft provide usefull and complete documentation about its protocol so that other competitors can implement compatible systems working with the Windows environment. Precisely, MSFT <i>has</i> provided a source code, claiming it was their "ultimate documentation". The experts on the case disagree, and so does the commission; a source code is no documentation. They are still faulty, by wide margins.
<p>
And there are other demands by the EU, aiming at stopping them from leveraging on the OS to expand their monopoly over other fields (Media player, instant messaging, file servers, messenging systems perhaps, and so on).
I wonder why the Commission did not aim the PDA/Phone markets too. At least I do not know if they did. Last time I requested from MSFT the meaning of Active Sync error codes, to dig into this whole mess while using -surprise !- another editor's PIM software, I received the following -oral- answer: "we lost them, we do not know what all those error numbers mean". Sure... Thanks for your help Bill.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
No, the problem is that Microsoft has been allowed to offer Windows XP N for the same price as the standard version of Windows XP. That's why nobody's interested.
Re:Until (Score:2, Informative)
I mean, 5 million new jobs since August 2003, 3.5% GDP growth, consumer confidence at 107, inflation at 2% (even with the hikes in gas), disposable income up 2%, unemployment pushing all time lows, durable goods up, productivity up, construction up, manufacuring expanding.
Ya know, I just don't see the "failing" US economy. If we're failing, then the rest of the world must really be in the toilet!