Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

EU Prepared to Fine Microsoft $2.5 Million Per Day 659

Lord_Slepnir writes "The European Union is unsatisfied with Microsoft's compliance with their anti-trust compliance from 2004, and is preparing to fine them 2 million Euros ($2.5m US) per day until they comply. Under that ruling, Microsoft must open up parts of their operating system to competitors, and change how they bundle Media Player." From the article: "On Monday, Microsoft said it had begun to provide the information Brussels had demanded, but the Commission has signaled the company acted too late. In December, Brussels informed the software giant that it had failed to comply with the original ruling it issued in March 2004."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Prepared to Fine Microsoft $2.5 Million Per Day

Comments Filter:
  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @11:50AM (#15613071)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by utopianfiat ( 774016 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @11:50AM (#15613073) Journal
    If they comply right away, do they not get fined?
  • Respect (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @11:52AM (#15613092) Homepage Journal
    It's all a questions of respect. The US government barked, but when it came to biting, they didn't. As a result, MS does not and will probably not ever again have respect for them.

    Apparently, someone in the EU has some soft skills and knows that at this stage it isn't about being right or wrong or fair or blablabla. If the EU doesn't bite after making so much noise about it, they'll have a hard time ever getting MS to comply with anything.

  • Re:I don't get it (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @11:55AM (#15613113)
    If they comply right away, do they not get fined?
    You just have your tenses mixed up, thats all. If they had complied right away then they would not be being fined. It's far far too late now for them to change the fact that they did not comply right away.
  • by mikesd81 ( 518581 ) <.mikesd1. .at. .verizon.net.> on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @11:57AM (#15613125) Homepage
    Microsoft will never play nice. What's totally amazing is other countries are imposing theses rulings, but in America they get away with it. If all these other countries think it's wrong, maybe it is.
  • by RonnyJ ( 651856 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @11:58AM (#15613132)
    If it was, I would imagine they'd have started imposing these fines many months ago - the original ruling was made in March 2004.
  • MSFT Trade Secrets (Score:2, Insightful)

    by neonprimetime ( 528653 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @11:59AM (#15613142)
    claiming that the Commission is forcing it to divulge valuable trade secrets.

    • Bloat the software as much as you like, consumers will just buy more hardware.
    • Rush the release date, we can always fix bugs later.
    • Don't be helpful to anybody outside the company unless they threaten to sue you.
  • Re:Oh noes! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by LnxAddct ( 679316 ) <sgk25@drexel.edu> on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @12:01PM (#15613155)
    Heh, that is over 900 million a year (and I believe this fee is retroactive). I'd like to see *any* corporation justify to its stock holders that they are blowing nearly a billion a year (unless of course Microsoft realized significantly more buisness oppurtunities as a result).Either way, I'm sure the EU wouldn't mind a billion extra on the books.
    Regards,
    Steve
  • by Richard W.M. Jones ( 591125 ) <{rich} {at} {annexia.org}> on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @12:03PM (#15613172) Homepage

    What are the chances of this being simply an excuse to generate a $2.5 million per day revenue stream for the EU government?

    Errrm, none? There is no "EU government" - perhaps you meant intergovernmental European Union, or the European Council, Commission or Parliament?

    The EU has a budget of over 1% of the European GDP (works out at around US$ 160 billion). Why would they want $2.5m/day?

    Rich.

  • by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @12:03PM (#15613174) Homepage
    I'm not sure what Gates's net worth is at the moment, but let's say he's got 40 billion in the bank, which is probably about right.

    At 2.5 million dollars a day, he'd be bankrupt in 54 years, assuming absolutely no income or other expenditures.

    I'm sure the company's pockets are much deeper than Gates's personal fortune.
  • Spare the rod... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @12:03PM (#15613175) Homepage Journal

    ... spoil the megacorp.

    Seriously, it seems that the entire history of antitrust action against MS in the US and Europe has been a colossal waste of time and effort. All it has done is show that governments don't really have the teeth to cut into Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. I originally thought the DOJ action was going to curb MS, but it didn't.

    When push came to shove, the US government wasn't truly prepared to make one of the crown jewels of American business suffer in order to make it change its ways. The EU is likely unwilling to push too hard for fear of invoking the wrath of the US government, which is just further proof that if a business becomes big enough, it can only very rarely be constrained by government.

    Market forces are doing a far better job of constraining Microsoft. Perhaps if Microsoft's competitors hadn't relied on antitrust lawsuits to save them, they might have fought MS more aggressively and effectively in the past. Apple learned its lesson. Sun (belatedly) learned its lesson. The lesson is that the government isn't going to help you fight Microsoft, so you have to figure out a way to do it yourself.

  • by jdb8167 ( 204116 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @12:03PM (#15613179)
    Microsoft has about $35 Billion in the bank. At $2,510,800 per day, that works out to about 38 years with its current cash. I'm thinking that the EU might want to up the fine if they want Microsoft to take them seriously.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @12:04PM (#15613185)
    What are the chances of this being simply an excuse to generate a $2.5 million per day revenue stream for the EU government?


    Zero. The revenue is doubtless a nice bonus but what matters most to governments is power. Microsoft has decided to defy the collective requrements of the sovereign governments that make up the EU, while operating in their markets. They're not going to let Microsoft get away with that if they can possibly help it. That's all the motive they need.
  • by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @12:08PM (#15613205)

    If that were the case, they'd be making it as difficult as possible for Microsoft to comply with their demands instead of telling them exactly what they are doing wrong and giving them years to correct their mistake.

    I know it's trendy to accuse the EU of being greedy and anti-American, and I don't deny that the money will be happily spent, but that doesn't mean Microsoft isn't breaking the law and it doesn't mean the EU aren't right to fine them.

    Microsoft could easily avoid these fines by complying with the court ruling. They have chosen to make every effort to avoid doing so, and these fines are the result.

  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @12:09PM (#15613213)

    I guess I'm looking for trouble by saying this on Slashdot, but I think the EU's reasoning on this issue is faulty, and I think it's an old-fashioned money grab.

    They're breaking the law. The US convicted them of it. The EU did too. So did several other nations. They have failed to comply with their punishment. If the EU does not act, they are stating to the world that they won't or can't enforce their own laws. For a fledgling organization like the EU, this would be devastating. If you convict someone of robbery and they escape from the prison instead of serving their time and then stroll into town and tell everyone they aren't going to accept the punishment since they don't want to, the law bloody well better act if they want to be taken seriously, ever.

    Good thing I'm not in charge of Microsoft. Out of spite I'd have pulled up stakes of everything in the EU, save for a distribution warehouse.

    Yeah, because you'd be fired and replaced within hours.

  • by jekewa ( 751500 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @12:10PM (#15613216) Homepage Journal

    If only there were another option; some kind of operating environment one could install on one's computer to do one's work. And maybe some other bits and pieces of software that could go with that environment that would still let one perform one's computer-centric duties.

    If only there were some way we could get from beneath the crushing foot of this megacorporation and have the freedom to choose. To choose the programs that met our needs, our budgets, and our requirements.

    Man, if only.

  • by absurdist ( 758409 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @12:17PM (#15613271)
    "Microsoft is headquartered in the US. I don't think the EU has the authority to simply demand money from them."

    Microsoft is a multi-national conglomerate doing business in many nations around the world. As such, they are requires to obey the laws and accept the sanctions imposed by every country or, in the case of the EU, group of countries they do business in.

    "Sure, they can kick 'em out of the country, but MS should call their bluff."

    Sure they should. Then the EU should simply impound all of MS's European assets, and strip them of all patent and copyright protection, thus allowing Europeans to install their new open source, free operating system quite legally under the laws of the EU.

    When you grow up you'll realize that there are other countries, legal systems, and ways of looking at things than the US's. BTW, as I pointed out before, the EU is a GROUP of countries... your statement about "kick them out of the country" berely underscores your ignorance.

    But thanks for playing.
  • by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @12:18PM (#15613285)
    They're breaking the law.

    I love it how The Slashdot GroupThink questions the validitiy and constitutionality of laws such as the DMCA, copyright laws, IP laws, etc., but when it comes down to anti-trust laws, there is NO debate, whatsoever, and people such as yourself continually just parrot "They broke the law! They broke the law!". Nice.
  • by Cleon ( 471197 ) <cleon42 AT yahoo DOT com> on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @12:25PM (#15613354) Homepage
    I don't think it's lack of teeth, it's lack of will.

    In the US case, the justice department got a conviction against Microsoft. Then the Bush administration was sworn in, and the incoming DOJ whittled the punishment down into a "don't do it again, *wink* *wink*, *nudge* *nudge*."

    In the European case, the EU is still finding its legs as an entity/pseudo-government. Any action they take against MS is going to be debated, re-debated, whined about, etc. They have the teeth, it's a question of whether they have the will to take a bite.
  • by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @12:26PM (#15613356)

    It's not about how long it will take them to run out of money, it's whether it's more profitable to pay the fine or continue to break the law.

    I assure you, Microsoft shareholders won't be saying "it's okay, we can last for years like this" to the Board of Directors, they'll be saying "why are we paying a billion dollars per year fine?"

  • by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @12:27PM (#15613372) Homepage Journal
    there's no need to create spurious conspiracy theories

    Would this be Slashdot if we didn't?
  • by gravij ( 685575 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @12:28PM (#15613381)
    Well if you can come up with a good reason why the current anti-trust laws are broken/stupid etc then you might be able to change people's minds. It seems that most people here (except perhaps Microsoft fanboys) are happy with the way the law tries to stop Microsoft from causing too much havoc in the world.

    On the other hand DMCA, patent laws, etc. seem to be broken in favour of big business. The same big businesses that control the government. I'm sure you can figure out what is wrong here.
  • by Svartalf ( 2997 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @12:51PM (#15613578) Homepage
    Only where it's applicable. If Microsoft has no Copyrights in the countries in question either because of an oversight or because they've been stripped of them, then the Berne Convention doesn't apply and the WTO won't directly intervene. If you didn't know, even in the US, they may strip a rights holder of their rights if they're guilty of using the same to violate the Anti-Trust Acts. It just doesn't happen all that often.
  • by Rakshasa Taisab ( 244699 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @12:51PM (#15613580) Homepage
    Perhaps the commission was expecting MS to produce proper documentation, rather than try to guess how close to useless they could get while still being in compliance.
  • by Foofoobar ( 318279 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @01:02PM (#15613705)
    Seriously, it seems that the entire history of antitrust action against MS in the US and Europe has been a colossal waste of time and effort. All it has done is show that governments don't really have the teeth to cut into Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior


    It's not that they don't have the teeth... it's that they don't have the BALLS! And sad to say, Europe is showing it has a helluva lot more balls than the US. Of course, this is mainly because lobbying is an industry of corruption here in the US. I'm honestly amazed that the EU hasn't been bought off yet or bribed into submission.
  • by Baki ( 72515 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @01:21PM (#15613899)
    Just let the market sort it out: do NOT grant companies protection for patents, copyrights, reverse engineering. Then the problem will solve itself.

    Many people are against monopolies, including myself. In fact I think monopolies are one of the few areas where state intervention is needed in the economy. However, even most monpolies only come to life and continue to exist not because the state doesn't do something against them, but because the state SUPPORTS them. They are supported by laws regarding patent, copyright, trade restrictions (e.g. against imports) and lately even against reverse engineering. Without such harmfull state intervention in the market, not many monopolies would survive for long.

    The EU need only abolish copyrights, and the problem shall be quickly solved.
  • by falconwolf ( 725481 ) <falconsoaring_2000.yahoo@com> on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @01:22PM (#15613921)

    I would not guess it would be good for business, but, if MS has that much cash they're sitting on, and still can do business with the rest of the world...what would stop them from pulling this, and using that to leverage the EU into getting off their ass about this?

    A problem with this is that Europe is a big market for Microsoft. Then there's also the possibility other regions or countries can follow their lead. Brazil for instance has been getting into open source a lot recently and it's gaining in India as well. Take a look at MIT's Nicholas Negroponte and his $100 Laptop [pcmag.com], part of a program to put a laptop in every child's lap. Something like this can be liability as well. If Microsoft doesn't try to work with programs like this, they could pull the carpet out from MS's feet.

    Falcon
  • Re:funyn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @01:25PM (#15613949)

    Why is everyone so against microsoft

    Because they are criminals that harm everyone and the computing industry in general with their crimes and because they have participated in the corruption of the US government by paying huge bribes to both major parties campaign funds to have the case against them gutted.

    Doesnt Win amp run as good as media player does on windows?

    How is this relevant?

    No matter what you say if microsoft withdrew all support and products from europe their[sic] would be some nasty consiquences[sic].

    Yeah, but they would be nasty mostly for MS.

    It would take some time for all servers and desktops to be tranistioned[sic] to linux.

    So, what would be the rush? Is MS going to try to get people in Europe arrested for pirating their software? Yeah, I'm sure the EU will get right on that. They'd probably revoke all of MS's trademarks, copyright, and patents in Europe, making Windows source code available freely.

    then would come trying to deal with the u.s and other countries that still use microsoft.

    Do you think other countries would not follow Europe's lead when MS failed to comply there? Do you think no one could manage to save as PDF, or use open office to open Word files?

    It would be very bad if microsoft took everything out of Europe.

    Yeah, that 10 minutes before the emergency conference call of MS's board would be pretty bad. Then the CEO would be removed and they'd go back to complying with the law. No one walks away from 20 billion in profit to avoid paying .7 billion. No one creates a huge market for their competitors, while undermining the monopoly that lets them make those outrageous profits. No one breaks their contracts with every major multinational in the world and expects to walk away from it. MS may be wealthy, but compared to the huge companies they would be screwing over they are a minnow in the ocean.

    For you video game junkies that would include the Xbox 360

    It's just one more market they are trying to make headway in that they would be crushed in.

    I am starting to feel the EU is just trying to extort money out of microsoft. Microsoft has been giving them what they want from what I have seen and they still are asking for money.

    Stop reading the MS press releases as news. No really, I'm serious. MS has not complied and have not documented the APIs well enough to allow competitors to compete on even footing. This is as judged by the expert MS picked to make this decision. Since you haven't seen the docs and he has and given his expertise and credibility, what possible reason could you think you have for being a better judge than he is? MS press releases can say what they want, but if you believe they are true and unbiased then you are complete fool.

  • US antitrust (Score:4, Insightful)

    by falconwolf ( 725481 ) <falconsoaring_2000.yahoo@com> on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @01:27PM (#15613966)

    Seriously, it seems that the entire history of antitrust action against MS in the US and Europe has been a colossal waste of time and effort. All it has done is show that governments don't really have the teeth to cut into Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. I originally thought the DOJ action was going to curb MS, but it didn't.

    The Clinton admin had MS on the run but with the change in admin's things changed. The Bush admin went easy, and basically let MS go free.

    Falcon
  • by l3v1 ( 787564 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @01:27PM (#15613969)
    don't really have the teeth to cut into Microsoft's

    And this is exactly why no corporation should ever be allowed to have such a huge influence on a specific field like MS has now on the os/sw market, and indirectly on everything else. I hope one day somebody will succeed in kicking MS in the ass - not because I dislike MS, but to show to everybody else that there are limits you should respect, no matter how much money you have.

  • "Sure, while it would seriously promote alternate OSes in EU, could the EU stand to have the carpet pulled out from under them in this manner considering how entrenched MS is in the world of computing..?"

    I agree that it would hurt with regard to new computer sales etc... however MS cannot stop existing installations from working. I also assume that should MS decide that they do not want to offer updates to existing software in the EU, while providing them for the rest of the world, that the EU would sanction "illegal" copies of said updates within the EU.

    Also, and probably more importantly, if MS did this (I am gonna take my ball and go home!) do you think that would be soon forgotten in EU countries? At that point MS becomes more of an enemy to the EU computing world than simply an 800lb gorilla. I think that should MS follow through with pulling out of EU it will probably result in MS not ever being able to re-enter that market; not due to political/legal problems but because people would not forget the way they were shunned by MS while MS was trying to make a point. In other words, if MS pulls out of EU, they have to consider the consequences with one of the most likely being that they could never re-enter that market in a substantial way again.

    Now before the MS apologists vent let me say a couple things. No, right now there is no equivilant replacement to MS. As a result, how long do you think it would be before either emulation (aka wine) was improved to the point of being transparent to the end user or how long before a lot of other software manufacturers start porting to Linux*? The EU has too many potential sales to ignore which most likely means that MS can no longer convince software houses to remain loyal to the MS world view of software.

    *I say Linux because it is the most sensible alternative. OSX does not run on generic (aka non-Apple) i386 and there are too many machines in place already. The BSDs are behind Linux in compatibilty with hardware and the amount of software written for Linux. I cannot think of any other OS that even approaches the maturity of Linux at this point.
  • by LittLe3Lue ( 819978 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @01:40PM (#15614092)
    haha.

    You are way off here. Europe is not just a 'Big Market' for Microsoft.

    If MS was to make 2 mill a day in EU, but fined 2.5 mill a day, it would be best to just move out, right?

    Or do you think that the loss of support for all of Europe might have a mass effect on the world market? These days most corporations have large divisions in Europe, or interact with counterparts in europe. If EU was forced to switch to anything but MS, large parts of the outside world would also.

    Not to mention, that if an entire continent showed it was capable of being productive without the juggernaught that MS is, the rest of the world would soon follow the example.
    And dont think that MS leaving EU would cause them to just callapse in onto themselves or something, just a big setback to start.

    Of course, Microsoft knows thats not even an option, and it'll never happen.
  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @01:40PM (#15614101) Journal
    What MS does not need right now, is for OSS/linux to flow into a market and be the main player. If Europe makes the leap to OSS, they will no doubt create loads of software companies. Some of these will be OSS, but I would guess that most will be closed. And most likely they will have no competition, but a HUGE market to sell to. At that time, the American companies will have no choice but to move into the Linux/OSS world. At that point, MS has lost not only a bit of business, but their monopoly. Game Over.
  • Re:pay... or else? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Firefalcon ( 7323 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @01:49PM (#15614185) Journal

    What happens if MSFT doesn't pay?

    As a last resort I'm sure they could freeze or seize some of Microsoft's assets/European based accounts to the value of outstanding fines...

    I suspect that Microsoft, apart from appealing in court again, wouldn't be foolish enough to ignore the ruling of a political entity that controls a region responsible for a reasonable fraction of their worldwide market (this is a presumption on my part - I couldn't find any regional revenue breakdown for Microsoft's earnings).

  • by JayDot ( 920899 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @02:22PM (#15614521) Journal
    Where might I find the information indicating that it was due to the "Bush Administration", as opposed to life-long government workers that keep their jobs even when the President swaps out? If the directive came from a Bush-insider, or at least a Bush appointee, then your insinuation has some theoretical founding. If, however, the lack of strong punishment was directed by a long-term bureaucrat, or a Clinton appointee, then I suggest that criticism should be placed on those actually responsible.



    I don't mind a good critique, it's unfounded accusations I can't stand.
  • by malkavian ( 9512 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @02:22PM (#15614527)
    But showing that they were prepared to scupper their own customer base due to spite would stop ANY business that had continuity plans from EVER using Microsoft products again. Simply because you couldn't trust them.
    It would kill the company overnight.
    Pulling out of Europe would also mean anyone that does a lot of business with Europe (read China, India, and many other places that don't rely solely on the US) would need compatibility with Europe too.. Which means they'd be introduced to non-MS products.
    With Europe + rest of world (bar US, most likely) using non-MS products rather quickly, the US would soon find that to do business with the rest of the world, it'd have to be compliant with the non-MS standard that had arisen behind the world wide economy.
    Which would loosen the grip of MS in the US, eventually making it irrelevant.
    So, in other words, they could choose spite, and kill their whole company in a couple of years (while leaving a lot of pain in the wake for a short amount of time), or they can toe the line, open their API, and do what the EU asks, and then have to compete on innovation with the rest of the world. Which, with the brains in the MS research labs, I reckon they've got a good shot at doing. Like IBM, they'll be around for decades to come, but without the massive monopoly they have now.
    If I were running the company, I know which option I'd choose.
  • Actually, I think I am seeing the bigger picture. If MS were to do such a thing as deny updates to their insecure products, do you think the EU would hesitate for one second to allow (if they didnt set them up themselves) independent (from MS) update servers? As far as disabling existing installations, that would be pretty ballsy even for MS. MS would incur the wrath of the WTO at a minimum; not to mention there are already (illegal) patches to bypass Windows authentication et al. In fact, should MS go that far, I believe that the EU would find a way to put all MS software into the public domain (in the EU) and even provide the patches to bypass any and all authentication. That is the worst scenario for MS; rather than just losing business in the EU, they have essentially removed any value at all from their own software. Who is going to pay for any kind of license from MS when it is perfectly legal to download and install a public domain version?

    This is all very hypothetical of course because the chances of MS pulling out of the EU (and a substantial part of their bottom line) are pretty close to zero. Not to mention, should MS attempt any of the "coups" that you mention, that pretty much puts the last nail in the coffin with regard to *ever* returning to the EU to do business.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @02:28PM (#15614597)
    however MS cannot stop existing installations from working

    You obviously haven't been reading the posts about Windows Update and WGA; they can, I suspect, break most anything they want.

    people would not forget the way they were shunned by MS while MS was trying to make a point

    Oh yes they can; unforunately, many people have a horrifyingly short memory for things.
  • by dargaud ( 518470 ) <slashdot2@@@gdargaud...net> on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @02:31PM (#15614623) Homepage
    this is mainly because lobbying is an industry of corruption here in the US. I'm honestly amazed that the EU hasn't been bought off yet or bribed into submission
    In the country where I currently live, France, 'lobbying' translates exactly as 'corruption' and is indeed illegal. Of course it still happens under the table (politicians will always be politicians, right ?). As to the EU, I'd be curious to know what the stance is on this whole lobbying/corruption thing. Like they say:
    "Campaign contribution is the same as if you tried to hand a cop a twenty before breaking the law. There are laws against bribery in some contexts, why do we allow it in more important contexts ?"
  • No wonder (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Chris whatever ( 980992 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @02:34PM (#15614653)
    No wonder Bill gates wants to retire.

    With all these lawsuits about everything i would take mt meager 100 billions dollars and get myself an island and make my own dosadi experiment.
  • by LuminaireX ( 949185 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @02:47PM (#15614767)
    That's exactly why you don't want to kick the dog in the teeth.

    These days most corporations have large divisions in Europe, or interact with counterparts in europe. If EU was forced to switch to anything but MS, large parts of the outside world would also.

    is a bit of a misnomer, because large corporations with divisions in Europe likely have access to MS products elsewhere - the original theory was that MS wouldn't sell products in Europe, not use them. Besides, just because a European business can't go down the street to pick up a copy of XP doesn't mean they can't get it - this is the Internet, dude. As far as switching to anything but MS, it's not as simple as that. The cost of researching alternatives that work for your business, tearing down existing infrastructure, replacing it with new infrastructure, and testing it extensively until it works is exponentially exorbitant the larger your company is. Not to mention that your average employee in a large corporation is a complete idiot when it comes to computers, and more resources would have to be spent retraining them. Businesses could switch, or they could pay extra to import software from elsewhere. The cost of doing business would go up, but if the cause was MS pulling out of Europe as a direct result of the EU imposing a fine, who are they really going to resent?

    This is really a case of who blinks first.
  • Re:Tale of a Gnome (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @02:49PM (#15614790)
    Your analogy is completely wrong, because it ignores a very important point in this: interoperability.

    You assume that each "wand" is self-sufficient and does not have to interact with other wands, from other suppliers. You assume that all wands do the same thing and are interchangeable. You assume that there are no people trying to get their wands (from different suppliers) to work together.

    You also assume that everyone else is happy with Microsoft's behaviour. They're not. You assume the EU's intention is to steal money. It's not -- I wouldn't consider asking for documentation to allow competitors to work with Microsoft products as "blackmail", especially considering that Microsoft is a "de facto" monopoly.

    So, please:
    - RTFA
    - get the facts straight
    - choose an appropriate analogy

    Telling a nice story which is a lie is still telling a lie. Maybe there should be some trolls in your tale.
  • Re:If I was MS.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Handover Phist ( 932667 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @02:53PM (#15614824) Homepage
    If Microsoft stopped selling in Europe that would leave a fairly large area of fertile brain in which competitive software can grow, and I dont think the brains at MSFT are so stupid as to miss that fact. That's one reason, and a very good one, that MSFT will pay the fines and get Vista [N] versions out the door ASAP.
  • Re:Clarification (Score:2, Insightful)

    by WilliamSChips ( 793741 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `ytinifni.lluf'> on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @02:58PM (#15614864) Journal
    Don't leave out the virus writers. As soon you you show the EU this information, the virus writers will also have it.
    Why doesn't the opensource community, which should obviously be at a disadvantage in this regard according to you, have bugs and such corrected much quicker than Microsoft, and why do open crypto algorithms have less holes than the closed ones?
    Microsoft has a superior operating system. That is why they control over 90% of the desktop market.
    No, they control 85% of the desktop market because they got lucky with IBM. That's the computer equivalent of winning the lottery.
    Why punish them for making it better? That must be a socialist ideal.
    Why not punish them for screwing us over(which is what they're doing)? That seems to be a propertarian ideal.
    And if anyone asks again why Microsoft Vista is going to be so expensive, you know. The EU just wants to get their hands in the pot.
    Oh, please. Windows was expensive even before the anti-trust rulings in the US. Microsoft is too greedy.
  • by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @03:01PM (#15614883) Journal
    So MS pulls out of the EU market. This is a government we are talking about. You know, the ones who make and enforce copyrights? They would be free to rule that, as a punishment, Microsoft's copyrights are no longer valid in the EU.
  • How many different vendors of Windows is there, oh, just one?
    Um, contrasted with the many Mac vendors?

    Can I check out the source code myself, no?
    Can I check the Mac source code?

    how about choosing my web browser at install time, no?
    I assume Safari's still default too.

    my desktop? which calculator I want to use? clock, no, office suite, no, media player, no?
    OSX, OSX, OSX, OSX, OSX.

    How about my security app, can I choose which one I want to have at install time, no?
    Can I do that with a Mac? Can I? I really don't know? Can I? I'm fairly sure I can't, but I'd be glad to admit OSX allows me to pick from several different security applications during the install.

    Keep windows, I'll stick with Linux.
    And there's my main point. All these regulations are put in place, supposedly, to help the average customer. That's what all the laws used are meant to do. But these restrictions on Microsoft aren't helping anyone except competing companies. And while that could be beneficial to the average customer, it just doesn't seem to work out that way. Take Firefox, for example, it's better than IE (not that much better, but better.), is advertised on thousands of websites, works on all platforms, easy to use, and is free - but still hovers around 10% of the market share. If I put a bucket of apples on the sidewalk with a 'take one' sign, Id get better penetration that 10%.
    Except for playing games, there's absolutely no reason for people to use anything Microsoft. Ever. That said, there's still millions of people using Windows for more than playing games. Why? It doesn't matter 'why?'. In a capitalist society the 'why' means nothing. It's the 'does' that matters. If you say that Linux is a viable alternative to windows for the average user, you're naive.
    The average user doesn't know, and doesn't care about Linux. They don't want to compile their own source code. They don't want to be bothered with choosing every little piece of software. They just want that blinkin' box to show them the boobies and the spreadsheets. They want their OS to operate exactly as their used to. Have you ever tried to get an average user to mount a CD in Linux? To the average user having functional applications built in is beneficial. I can't imagine the complaints that Best Buy gets when someone brings home Windows-N and finds out they can't get on the Internet. "What do you mean I have to get my own brassiere? .. Don't correct me punk..."
    I can't believe anyone, anyone, can say 'un-bundling IE and Media Player from Windows is beneficial to the average consumer' with a straight face.

    Litigating Microsoft is something that should be done - but for the extortion and the theft - not bundling fucking media player. Fuck.
  • by Cheeze ( 12756 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @03:25PM (#15615087) Homepage
    Well, Largest economy?

    You can't really compare a union of countries with a single country. Why not compare the EU to all of North America (Mexico, USA, and Canada)?
  • by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @03:30PM (#15615138)
    I know myself as a Windows developer that WINE can be an invaluable resource to understanding how the Win32 API works. For the most part the APIs in Windows are fairly well documented, but occasionally you'll come across one which takes a LPVOID which could be one of many structures, all of which have flags, and size members and not enough documentation, or it doesn't make clear who allocates or releases what, or has some flag with a meaningless name and description. WINE can help a lot in those situations.

    I guess MS Engineers are no different. Sometimes looking at someone else's implementations of their own APIs can be less confusing that attempting to make sense of the garbled 10 year old documentation that was written in-house or not even locatable. Still, I would have thought MS would be slapping their staff hard for doing that, for fear of somehow "infecting" their own code by mistake.

    As for MS and this process. I can well imagine that if you are faced with providing documentation that you make sure it's written by a remedial English class, translated into Mandarin, then to Urdu and finally back into English. Then ensure to sort in a useful way such as by how many vowels there are on each page and copiously hyperlink every single instance of "and", "then", "if" but nothing else.

  • by pyros ( 61399 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @03:43PM (#15615251) Journal
    Microsoft is the mafia boss running the protection racket, the OEM vendors are the shop owners, and the EU is the FBI coming in to tell Microsoft to just not set fire to business who don't buy into the 'insurance' plan. To be fair, I can see the point you're trying to make, but Microsoft would have had to have been playing fair and not abusing a monopoly position for them to be the shop owners paying protection money to EU mafia.
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @04:05PM (#15615451)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by simgod ( 563459 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @04:30PM (#15615687)
    Do you (USA, Mexico, Canada) have a common Parliament?
  • Re:Shove it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @04:31PM (#15615697) Journal
    i hope microsoft tell the EU to shove their "easy money" sceme, thats all the EU want, microsoft's money.

    So, what you're suggesting is that the judge in this case has looked at the EU's budget, decided, say that the French tourist industry could do with a subsidy, and fined Microsoft so he could pay for it. Or do you think the council of ministers ordered the court to make this ruling? Government organisations don't work like that. The EU does not think with one mind. We're not the borg!

    i dont see why windows cant bundle WMP or IE, yet its ok for every linux dist to bundle a media player, and a browser.

    Because Microsoft have effective control of the market.

    microsoft have already opened up documents for everything the EU wanted, the EU are just getting greedy and forcing microsoft to give up more.

    Good. About time too. Everything should have been documented a long time ago.
  • by Tom ( 822 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @04:50PM (#15615853) Homepage Journal
    I think the EU's reasoning on this issue is faulty, and I think it's an old-fashioned money grab.

    On the first: MS has (again) been convicted in a court case.

    On the second: Maybe, but then again so is speeding tickets and parking fines. When the crime doesn't warrant throwing someone in jail, or you can't because the "someone" is a corporation, then the only thing left is fines, because in the western world we abandoned the whip, cutting-off-of-fingers and other fun punishments a few centuries ago.
  • by IllForgetMyNickSoonA ( 748496 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @05:38PM (#15616289)
    Well, imagine - EU insisting that companies follow the laws, and is not afraid of showing some muscles to make sure they will.

    If anything, that's a reason to *join* the EU, not to pull out.

    What would you prefer the EU to do? To say "well, uh... OK, so... you're not playing by the rules, but we can't afford a fight, so.. OK, so be it."?
  • Well, my point is that it won't escalate that far. It's like MAD, MS knows Europe has the doomsday device, EU knows MS has the doomsday device, they both just play nice. Copyright laws are not international, in that any country can invalidate any copyright it wants to, and the Berne convention just means you have to treat copyrights in a certain way. No copyright, no problem. National laws still trump the WTO, too. Sure, there are sanctions, but there were trade wars before the WTO, this is just more of the same. Last I checked, the WTO doesn't have a standing army to enforce its decisions. A big megacorp still can't trump a powerful government when said government gets its back up. But there are repurcussions, that's why I called it "EU's Nuclear Option"

    But you are right, likeliest scenario: MS pays and that's that.
  • by N3wsByt3 ( 758224 ) on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @07:46PM (#15617166) Journal
    "Contrary to what some Europeans and by extension Euro-philes seem to believe, the vast majority of Americans do realize that the US is not the only country in the world."

    Yeah, but at the other hand, more then 1 out of ten of adult Americans can't find their own country on a worldmap.

    And it's not like it's a *small* country.

    "Way to propogate untrue American stereotypes."

    Well, not *completely* untrue, it would seem. While stereotypes have the disadvantage to be generalising as if every last (in this case) American is the same dimwit - which is untrue, of course - those stereotypes often do have some basis. For instance, when one compares the general level of education of the USA to that of the EU, it becomes more then apparent that the USA is severely lacking. This does not mean mean that there are no good schools in the USA, or that all American kids are more stupid then EU-ones - but it does mean that, as a whole, schools suck more in the USA, and the kids there are in general more stupid and ignorant then in the EU - which the stereotype hints at.

    In the same sense the notion that Americans (in general) are more ignorant about world-affairs and other countries outside their own, then EU-citizens, is to a large extend exact. This notion is the basis for the stereotype - which remains exact, exept when used in it's most broad context where it would encompass 'all', without room for individual exeptions.

    "It's interesting to me how every Euro/Euro-phile on slashdot likes to paint the US government as being intrusive into other countries affairs...[]"

    Must...not...give...in...

    Luckily for you you narrowed it down fast with 'foreign company' and 'anti-trust violations' - which I can't comment on since I'm not familiar enough with these specific details in a historical context. And neither are you, I presume.

    "This doesn't happen except in small countries run by dictators. The EU isn't stupid enough to actually consider such an action."

    I partially agree. It is very unlikely either the USA or the EU would do such a thing, unless something drastic would happen, like a war (or at least, a severe trade-war). In normal circumstances, the USA and the EU are trade-partners, and doing such a thing would unbalance every trade-agreement.

    It's not completely impossible, however, even in no-war situation; for instance, if a company would refuse to act according to the laws/rules/prohibitions it was handed down, and it was a matter of public health.

    But that isn't the case here, so it remains extremely unlikely such a thing would happen.

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...