EU Fines for Microsoft Approved, Off the Record 692
mattaw writes "The Register is carrying a report that all 25 member states of the EU have found Microsoft guilty of non-compliance, off the record. Microsoft is in line for a fine of $2.51 million per day backdated to December 15th 2004 for failing to meet the terms of the EU commission's ruling."
so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:good for the EU (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:good for the EU (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I find some of Microsoft's business practices to be anticompetitive, handing over monies to governments isn't really going to do anything. Giving money to competitors won't help anything, since they won't learn to be competitive with handouts...
Honest question, not trolling... I'm wondering what they should really be doing, besides forcing Microsoft to stop doing business in member states as long as they remain noncompliant, perhaps.
-Nev
Re:Thats A LOT of money (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it really fair? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is it really fair? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's wrong with forcing non-compliant businesses from operating?
We should be wondering what Microsoft should really be doing, besides non-complying with anti-trust, anti-competitive laws, and stonewalling progress and crippling the competition. What'd be your honest answer to this question?
Re:Is it really fair? (Score:5, Insightful)
2. And also to be fair, from what I have seen, MS has been bobbing and weaving like an aging boxer to avoid most of the spirit of the rulings. The commission gave them, up to now, 1.5 years to comply. And the company has been dragging its feet in every direction. This didn't come out of the blue.
3. If you think this is harsh, consider that an American judge had ordered to split the company up completely.
BTW, I am not for the commission completely (as I am not pro-EU, the EU tries to get into every aspect of European life which I abhor) but MS doesn't have to do business in Europe. I don't know if this will finally pass but it just has the balls to do what the US Justice Department was too corrupt (from up top) to finish.
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
To my mind: enforcing their judgement. MS, along with most American corps basically get to play Cartman in real life. They break every moral, ethical and legal code but when it comes time to pay the piper, a few well placed bribes or a just suggestion that perhaps at some point in the future they might throw a few jobs into someone's constituency and they get off with a pat on the head and a lollipop.
The EU thing has been going on a really long time. I believe that even after they were found to be in violation, they continued with business as usual for over a year while the EU postured with a bunch of empty threats culminating in the "daily fine" threat. Since then, MS has been given ANOTHER eight months or so to get their house in order. If they had done so at any point during that time (eg: after continuing their predatory and arrogant behaviour for an additional two years AFTER being found guilty) they would have STILL gotten their lollipop.
I think that fines are the only stick you've got to use on a corporation. What else would you suggest: throw all the employees and shareholders in jail or just give them a lollipop and ask them to play nice?
Re:so? (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft owns what, 95+% of the global desktop OS market? How exactly do you shut down or prohibit a company from operating when they have that type of a market share? I'm not saying that something shouldn't be done, but you can't just say "Sorry, you can't do business here" when 95% of your PCs being used every day need them.
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Use the fine money to fund a public reverse-engineering project for all the APIs and communications protocols. Nullify any patents held by Microsoft which would prevent competitors from re-implimenting the OS and/or bundled software.
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
It will simply force MS to rethink their compliance, or face a whole continent migrating to other operating systems.
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
And thats exactly what this is all about.
They cant really force anybody to stop using microsofts products, and they cant force microsoft to completly stop selling their products.
So they gave microsoft some time to prepare documentation that would be available to competitors. For a fee. With no recommendation to give it away, or how much to charge for it. And to this today - microsoft has not yet complied, and are still working on documentation for an OS that was written a couple of years ago.
Every developer worth their money has pre-project documentation, code documentation, end user documentation (for things such as api's and libraries). This has been a standard in the industry for decades. And - most of windows is documented in such a way if said libraries and api's were ever intended to be used by someone out of microsoft. And yet - the others werent, as i seems.
The inner workings of windows and their internall protocols are a mystery even to them.
Thats the only thing that could justify getting a 300 person team for over a year of time.
AND NOT COMPLETING THE TASK!
This only says about the quality of the code - or the obfuscation that they used to actually throw competitors off track.
I remember when the ruling became a very public thing over here at slashdot. Everyone agreed that it was the only thing that the EC could do, and that decision was just.
And now that the fines accumulated to a spectacular (even for microsoft this is a big bag of money which they will have to explain to their shareholders) 1 billion USD, everyone is beggining to feel sorry for them ?!
Sorry - as far as i know they didnt comply, had well over a years time and are still arguing about their case.
I have no sympathy for them. Not that i ever did - but feel free to point out the weeks spots in my understanding of this case.
Disclamer: i am a linux user.
Re:Is it really fair? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:so? (Score:1, Insightful)
What's wrong with forcing non-compliant businesses from operating?
What's wrong with killing people who jaywalk?
I'm all in favor of Microsoft opening some of their interfaces, but let's face it -- there is NOTHING that Microsoft can do with their apps that a third party can't. It just requires the third party to write more software that looks like native stuff. Big deal.
I'm not going to cynically call this a cash grab on the EU's part (though, I think that plays a part), I think this is more about ignorant politicians being convinced by angry Microsoft haters to "do something -- ANYTHING" even if it means absolutely nothing.
Re:So that's... (Score:1, Insightful)
I mean, seriously, what's to stop Microsoft from just saying they aren't going to pay. Has the EU really got the balls to stop them trading (in EU)?
I, for one, don't think so. I wish they did, but...no. There'll be some big argument over the whole thing and they'll come to some 'compromise', just like they did in the US.
Re:Will this really make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
But, really, what can you say about a company who seems to be unable to produce _usable_ technical documentation for their headline product?
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the EU does not permit software patents, as on date. Any MS patents are null and void in the EU as it is.
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, I thought splitting MS Office from MS Windows seemed reasonable. The point being, not to shut anything down, just to require Microsoft to expose their roadmap and APIs enough for other companies to get in the game. Yes, I can see why Microsoft would kick and scream and drag their feet on that. Having a lock on 95% of the market is pretty awesome, just look at their financial reports for the last 15 or so years in a row. But their dominance is not good for the market; not just for competitors, but for consumers (which in this case is mainly other businesses outside the computer industry).
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will this really make a difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
It will never happen. Even if (which I doubt as they'll at least try to kill eons with negotiations) Bill has to write the check (and keep writing them daily until the EU is satisfied) there is no way in hell that M$ will just let the EU default to linux or the various bsd's.
As for the price per day, ISTR seeing someplace that the fine was chosen to match the estimated sales per day within the EU. Can anyone deny/confirm that? If true, then I don't see it as excessive. Were I setting it, given the testimony thats been given ink that I've seen, I think I'd have chosen it to be a net loss per sale, of the price of the sale, or 2x the street price.
I'm with Linus in this: "If we change how microsoft does business, then we will have won".
As for the billions Bill has, I would wager that if he actually did business on the merits of his product, 2 things would have already happened. 1. Windows would be a hell of a lot more stable and secure than it historicly has been, and 2. He would have made even more money! Of course that would have had to happen 20 years ago in order to head linux off at the pass. I don't recall what his worth was then, but it surely would have been sufficient to survive the corporate direction change that would have required. One things for sure, M$ has enough in the bank to survive a rebirth in the business office, so I fail to see why the hint isn't being taken other than the corporate blinders are causing a total, identifiable by any optometrist, case of tunnel vision.
--
Cheers, Gene
Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems so obvious now!
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
MS's attempts at compliance were deemed inadequate even though they protested that it was "too hard" to comply to the degree that the EU wanted. We'll see if it was $1,000,000,000+ too hard.
This fine is more like a contempt of court charge, and doesn't let MS off the hook. They're still expected to comply.
Don't think in terms of their cash in hand or flow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will this really make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. I think you have it the wrong way round. The fact that Microsoft is an (illegally maintained) monopoly, is what *allows* them to sell an operating system for 300 - 400 instead of a more reasonable 50 - 100.
Re:So that's... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Maybe the judges reckon that MS made much more than ONE BILLION DOLLARS with their anti-competitive practices...
2. Maybe they felt that the fine should be high enough to deter continued violation, but lower than MS's profits in the EU... thus MS would consider compliance the better policy?
3. Maybe the judges aren't so happy to let the Corporate Mr. Evil run unchecked in Europe?
Re:hmm, free budget money (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is it really fair? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft doesn't pay anything... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not how monopoly pricing works; that's how a perfectly competitive market works. In a perfectly competitive market, adding to the costs increases the price because the price is driven down to the cost (the supply curve). In a monopoly, adding to the costs has zero effect, because price is determined by *demand*. I.e. they sell the OS for the most that they can get already. If they could sell it for more, they already would.
With monopolies, prices are chosen because an increase in price reduces the quantity of sales such that total revenue drops. Similarly, a decrease in price reduces revenue by more than the increased quantity of sales, so that total revenue drops. This fine does not affect that calculation in any way. Therefore, for them to increase prices, they would either have to accept lower revenue or they would have had to have been underpricing their product. I.e. charging less than the market would bear.
Re:So that's... (Score:5, Insightful)
My god, did you really just say that? And you even got an "insightful" mod--that's just sad! Microsoft has billions and billions invested in Europe. They have money in European banks, they own property, etc. They don't have the option of refusing to pay! The European governments can, if they want, just take the money! Bam, done! Heck, a billion dollars probably wouldn't even put a noticable dent in their European assets.
And anyway, Microsoft isn't going to fight over what amounts to a slap on the wrist. At least, not if it looks like they're risking losing even more. Even with this fine, Europe is still an incredible, unbelievable source of profit to Microsoft. Collectively, the second largest economy in the world, IIRC. There's no way they're going risk all that money just for this tiny little fine that is more-or-less the equivalent, to them, of some change found under the cushions, to you and me.
Re:so? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright is granted by governments to legal entities (individuals and corporations); thus, what is granted can also be taken away. It's a grant, not an inalienable right.
Although I don't think the E.U. has the cojones to actually do it, it wouldn't be totally outside their power (well, it might be -- I don't know whether the E.U. handles copyrights -- but as a government, fundamentally they wouldn't be) to strip an entity which didn't comply with its laws, of some of the protections afforded to compliant entities.
Re:Is it really fair? (Score:4, Insightful)
In order for the two first to work, the fine must be sufficient to influence your behaviour. If you earn a thousand dollars a week, obviously the risk of getting a 50 cent fine for some behaviour or other is unlikely to deter you much.
On this background, scaling fines by the income of the recipient makes perfect sense. True for individuals, even more so for companies. A $5000 fine could be sufficient to influence a tiny company, on MS it obviously would not even register.
If you did *not* scale the fines then you'd have two alternatives when it comes to companies. Either the fines are so high that any fine at all results in instant bankruptcy for all small and medium companies, or the fines are so low that they are completely ineffectual as tools for modifying large-company-behaviour.
Back to the old calculator... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So that's... (Score:2, Insightful)
In general big companies may play around where fines are concerned, but when it comes to the things that might send directors to jail they play by the rules.
They very much take the attitude that shareholders money is theirs to play with, but when it's their own ass on the line they're more circumspect.
--Q
Re:EU? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:so? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So that's... (Score:3, Insightful)
matter-antimatter collision (Score:2, Insightful)
Protect companies mentality (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, my biguest personal grip with the law in capitalist countries at the moment is how disproportionaly harsher it is on individuals that it is on companies - for example, if an individual kills someone due to negligence he/she goes to prison, while if a company kills multiple people they get a fine.
Even more relevant to this situation is the disparity when both the individual and the company do something for which they are fined: the issue here is that, proportionaly to the annual income of the individual and the company, a fine with the same value usually is a much higher burden for an individual than for a company. Worse still, for equally harming crimes, companies often get lower fines than individuals since they have beter lawyers, beter connections and the law is (thanks to many years of lobbying) skewed to be harsher on the types of crimes done by individuals than one those done by companies even when both crimes do the same amount of harm.
So back to the fine on MS and to put things in perspective:
- MS had in the year of 2005 a net (thus after taxes) income of $12254 millions, a fine of 1.400 millions is thus 11,4% of their net income.
- For an individual making $150000 bruto per month, with a 30% flat income tax (thus $105000 net income), an equivalent fine (thus 11,4% of their yearly net income) would be $11970
Thus, Microsoft's fine is equivalent to a $11970 (in one year) fine for an individual with an well above average income.
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
here's also a program which gives access to source code specifically trying to appease the EU here
Which getting leaves anyone reading them open to accusations of copyright violations if they even look at them.
Personally, i think that the fact that the communication protocols that the majority of the world rely on, appear to not be properly documented, a rather scarry state of affairs.
FYI: It's mainly about network protocols (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it sounds like a small thing because that's not the whole thing, and it's the least of the non-compliance problems too. MS was basically ordered there to _also_ sell a version without it, which isn't even much of a punishment when they can keep selling the version _with_ Media Player too.
The current fighting is over the other, and more important part there, namely APIs and protocols. MS has been given a list of stuff it must provide adequate documentation for, and to everyone. That's all.
Basically what the EU is saying is "wtf? A situation where only Windows workstations can talk to a Windows server is a recipe for a monopoly. Do be so kind and provide the documentation for those protocols." It's just telling MS that its products should compete with others on their merits, not on being the only thing that can interoperate with their other products. It shouldn't be years of guesswork and reverse engineering just to get a Linux or Solaris box to talk to a Windows server.
And MS so far has been playing hardball and turning it into a media battle. It started by pulling stunts like selling some libraries and docs preferentially and putting some stupid conditions on getting them. (E.g., literally, you can't use them in an OSS product. Literally.) Then it offered a bunch of undocumented and incomplete implementation code. (The EU says: sorry guys, we asked for protocol documentation. Be so kind and provide the docs.) And so on. And, again, it's been busy astroturfing and turning it into a media posing contest.
And IMHO the court has played pretty nice so far. Even the fine is "backdated" and thus so large, because, seriously that was the final date at which MS was ordered to provide those docs. At some point, after giving MS ample time and letting them delay for years, the court basically said, "No, this is final. At date X you must provide those docs or pay a fine per day." It still gave MS more timeouts even after that, and a chance to not pay those fines, but under the explicit condition that, seriously, if MS still doesn't comply than the original date still stands.
Basically, seriously, if I did half that shit in a court of law, I'd be in contempt and probably facing some quality time behind bars. I'm not anti-MS or anything, but at some point a court of law must be able to enforce compliance or it becomes just a joke. You can't allow someone to basically just refuse to obey for years.
Re:Will this really make a difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:so? (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, that's exactly what did happen with the X Window System.
Anyway, governments can issue Compulsory Purchase Orders e.g. to buy land that is required for road building projects or similar schemes, where the importance to Society At Large is deemed great enough. If "intellectual property" is so much like real property, it ought to be equally subject to CPOs. I suggest to compulsorily purchase the copyright on all versions of Windows for 0.01 {which will have to be paid as a cheque, since the smallest coin is 5; this probably will be swallowed up by bank charges, since Microsoft is a company and so doesn't get free banking} and immediately dedicate it to the Public Domain.
Re:good for the EU (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think that a corporation is anything more than a government without laws, representation or even a theoretical interest in human life and dignity, you are fooling yourself.
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copylefting MS? (Score:2, Insightful)
Were the EU to deny Microsoft copyright protection in its member states, I suspect that the Microsoft would lobby the US Government to act in WIPO and WTO (with other small countries bullied) to impose sanctions upon Europe. It's been a while since we've had some empire-wrangling (well, since the allegations that Saddam Hussein was planning to sell Iraq's oil in Euros before 2003's 'liberation') and that could interesting times indeed.
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
US Imperial SI
10^3 - thousand - thousand - kilo
10^6 - million - million - mega
10^9 - billion - milliard - giga
10^12 - trillion - billion - tera
10^15 - quadrillion - trillion - peta
10^18 - quintyllion - quadrillion - exa
Re:so? (Score:3, Insightful)
In my experience the problem is that the customers don't give a damn about long term effects - they are only interested in the *current* state of affairs.
I.e. customers want lots of software to be bundled because it's easier for them *now*. They also want vendor lockin because they don't have to bother making decisions. Pulling the plug on bundling and lockin actually makes things worse for the current customers so the customers are resistent to action being taken against MS.
I've seen the same thing when talking to people about VoIP - there are plenty of SIP/PSTN gateways around with competetive prices, but people like Skype despite the fact that it locks them into a single vendor and they can't shop around for the best prices. Why? Because shopping around is effort and they can't be bothered.
The problem is that this attitude comes back to bite everyone in the arse a few years later when there is a single dominant company and everyone's locked into using them - at that point the dominant company can do pretty much whatever they want. If someone steps in at any point in the cycle and prevents the bundling and lockin, it *will* get worse for the customers before it can get better - there's just no way around this, and unfortunately many of the customers would prefer everything to get progressively more sucky than put up with a few years of inconvenience before it gets better.
The Harrison Bergeron Principle (Score:3, Insightful)
I know this is a little upside down compared to other parts of the legal system, and that counterintuitive element is probably one reason why the issue is sticky. For example, in the realm of personal conduct, the law works better when it tells people what they can't do (you can't hurt other people) instead of what they can do (Conduct Code Article 2,334,202 (a)(iv): you may brush your teeth with either your left or right hand).
But with the Microsoft situation, it's different. I think it hurts consumers when you tell Microsoft they can't bundle office and media player and IE and whatever other functionality in with the operating system. I'm a consumer, and I would like those things bundled. So I don't think it is necessarily a good thing for the courts to tell Microsoft "you can't include this or that feature with Windows." But I think the court definitely should be able to say, "you must provide documentation and APIs and whatever else to make your stuff interoperable with other company's products and services." That makes much more sense to me.
Basically, it levels the playing field not be crippling Microsoft, but instead by enabling others to better get a toe in.
In principle, I don't think it is fair to cripple the more-able just for the sake of making things fair for the less-able. When I was a kid in Michigan we had 'accelerated' gradeschool classes for gifted kids in math and whatnot. Then during the political correctness craze they got shut down for being 'unfair' to other kids. Maybe it has since changed back, I'm not sure.
It's basically the Harrison Bergeron Principle (after the 1961 Kurt Vonnegut short story). In that story, "equality has been achieved by handicapping the most intelligent, athletic or beautiful members of society down to the level of the lowest common denominator." [wikipedia]. The point is, that is the wrong approach. While I may not be Microsoft's biggest fan, I think it is the wrong approach with Microsoft as well.
Re:The Harrison Bergeron Principle (Score:3, Insightful)
To me, it makes much more sense to tell them what they must offer.
Microsoft must provide the documentation and APIs associated with programing Win32 applications, file formats, and network protocols. These must be avaliable at a nominal fee.
Re:so? (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Governments grant copyright licenses, not corporations. The EU can easily say that Office&XP are no longer covered by copyright. Copy at will. Matter of national security. And guess what, in this instance they'd be right; you don't want the entire government to be beholden to a corporation that can pull its product on a whim. This would be the example that proved the theory.
3. You seriously underestimate Europe's capability to build and switch to a standard. GSM is a European invention, is required for mobile phone usage in Europe, and has spread worldwide. Any serious OS "incident" would result in Europe stabilizing on Linux (or something else) within a matter of months. In the short term, Europe would continue to use its legally "pirated" copies of Windows. In the long term? Something homegrown. Europe's good at that.
In short, you seriously overestimate the strength of Microsoft, and seriously underestimate Europe. Don't do that; we do not yet live in the true corporate plutocracy. And most of us don't want to. I'm glad that governments can win this fight.
Re:so? (Score:3, Insightful)
Better: jail terms for shareholders. Why should the owners of the corporation (who choose the directors) be held to a lesser moral standard than other individuals?
Re:good for the EU (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think a goverment is anything more than a corporation with guns, you're fooling yourself.
All the more reason to keep the corps and the gov against each other since when gang up together against us it's the worst of both worlds.
Re:so? (Score:2, Insightful)
More likely that the residents of that continent will throw a tantrum when their computer breaks down and they can't get support because "your government won't let us" forcing the law makers to back down and find another route.
Re:Will this really make a difference? (Score:2, Insightful)
You're funny. You think that Microsoft keeps all their assets and money in a big vault in the USA where the EU can't reach it. Do you think Microsoft only exists as a walled citadel in Redmond and a big delivery truck drives out every week with a 'Europe' sticker on its side? Do you think that once the EU is thwarted they will throw a huff and outlaw Microsoft products?
What's more likey, (meaning it's only slightly more likely than something that's never going to happen in a billion years) is that if MS doesn't pay, the EU would withdraw all legal protection from MS products and licences. Effectively make them free in the EU.
Re:Is it really fair? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. You misunderstand the purpose of a fine. It doesn't exist to repay the damage, it exists to discourage the undesired behavior. It is a punishment, not a damage settlement. If the rich and the poor pay the same monetary amount as the fine, then the poor is going to be hit a lot harder than the rich, and thus they are not equal before the law. The only way to keep the punishment approximately the same is to scale the money loss with the monetary resources of the one being punished.
Basically, a fine is used when jailtime is either considered too hard a punishment or is otherwise impractical.
Besides, parking in front of the fire hydrant could, in the worst-case scenario, lead to an out-of-control fire that kills hundreds of people, so if we go the cost-to-society rote, it should carry a mandatory death penalty.
Re:so? (Score:3, Insightful)
All swearing aside, looking at the source code is not an appropriate solution because it encumbers the viewer of the source code. The proposed rememdy was for specifications of the protocol so that clean independent 3rd party applications could be written that interopeate with windows. Either MS does not have the documentation, or it is unwilling to provide it. Either way, anyone who wants to write clean software that interacts with MS products has an uphill battle.
And while a large part of the MS XML format is open, significant parts of it are wrappers around proprietary binary objects. Just how is that open? Leaving aside the issue of Open Source, how can I as a small company make a product that can import a MS XML file with any consistency?
Really? 5-10 years ago, MS was playing reasonably nice at standards committes. In the interm, they have withdrawn from many and made thier protocols much more difficult to interact with. Just talk to the Samba team
Re:so? (Score:3, Insightful)
> I can run a mixed Windows and Linux system in either a flat TCP/IP network or a Microsoft style Active Directory. I can even use a Linux box as the DC. How exactly does that not mean "interoperability"?
You can partially run that, but not at full scope. Inter-domains, inter-forests authentication does not work well as far as I know. And Samba 3 is not that easy to implement because the developpers have spent much time guessing what their program was supposed to answer and request to native Ms boxes, instead on concentrating on making an easily used product. This should change with Samba 4. Basically, the UE told MS that competitors should have nothing to guess or reverse-engineer for anything concerning the protocols: those must be properly documented.
> Yeah, because offering a peek at the goddamned source code didn't go far enough, right?
Right: competitors are fed up to guess and decrypt, wether be it C code or packets. It is much more difficult to analyse some hundred thousands lines of code than to implement a properly documented protocol. Especially when the code may change at will and cannot be observed at will and at no cost. And there are intellectual properties issues too... so do not be angry, but the "we show the code" proposal is meaningless.
> And the recent shift toward open XML-based formats doesn't amount to nothing short of rolling over on their back and exposing their bellies to the pack?
Is a partial XML implementation worth anything if MS can change it at will? What we need is a documented and stable standard. Ms will not offer that.
> Microsoft abused their position 5-10 years ago [...] it appear they stopped when caught.
What is the year you're living in? 2020? 2040? Do you know that in 2006 they sell many "poison pills" product at great loss to poison competitors? Just look at their PDAs... Wonderfull things, all those Windows Mobile things: they can only work well on Windows (you guess it: undocumented protocols) and with Exchange. And once you offer enough of those to the executives, bingo! here comes Exchange and, with it, Active Directory. Just one example. And those PDAs are sold well under their cost, when they are offered. And then you come to corruption...
> But now? We have the third most corrupt pseudo-government organization in history, the EU, making backroom deals with one another to slowly bleed Microsoft, which represents the most recent of the great American capitalist successes.
Corrupt, the EU? You mean, more than all banana republics, China, Russia, most of Africa and the White House except two of those? You want to be rated "funny" certainly. What is you source? And which "backroom deal"? You mean that the expert choosen and paid by Ms, who has stated that "Ms does not comply", is bought? By whom? Sources? Facts?
And you call a monopolistic and repeatedly condemned corporation the "great American capitalist successes". Maybe that explains partially why American capitalism is not widely praised by most people.
Re:so? (Score:3, Insightful)
Limited liability and the ability to incorporate are not natural rights. They are privileges granted by society and government in exchange for the corporation doing public good. We so often forget this, and think of "corporation" as a synonym for "business" -- but it's not.
If a corporation does harm (e.g. repeatedly commits contempt of court), then why not cease to recognize it as a corporation? If society no longer receives its consideration, then society should stop extending special favors.
At a minimum, the court should pierce the veil and view Microsoft as individuals, and hold each person responsible for whatever actions they commit. Perhaps take away the corporation's other unnatural powers, such as its ability to be a party in a contract, its ability to collectively hold assets, etc. Do whatever is necessary (in terms of revoking special privileges -- DO NOT INFRINGE ON ANYONE'S RIGHTS!) to make the buck stop somewhere and get responsible behavior.
Re:pardon me... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're the kind of idiot that makes us look bad.
You want to sell products in Europe? Play by Europes rules.
You want to sell products in China? Play by Chinese rules.
Tell me, how do you feel about it the other way around? Do you think BMW should be "forced" to abide by American safety standards on its cars?
Do you think the Airbus should be "forced" to pay attention to the FAA when building its planes?
Do you think that French wine manufacturers should be "forced" to agree to FDA labelling requirements?
What about the U.S. "winning" the battle against European subsidies for Airbus. Sounds like 'foreigners' doodling with a European company.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you're going to play on the world market, expect to following the rules of other jurisidictions. Otherwise, pull your products out.
MS doesn't have to pay the EC. They could simply withdraw from Europe, and totally ignore the EU's rules & fines & taxes. It's no one's fault but Microsoft.