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."
Re:300 engineers (Score:5, Interesting)
protocols including CIFS, and tens of thousands of pages of documentation,
which are terribly inadequate given their culture. they were talking about
a spec-writing team of 50 to do part of that work in a 6 month period of
time. many of the other people involved were the engineers who did the
original implementations and are now the only source of information.
they dug themselves a really really big hole. getting out is basically
impossible.
What is an off the record fine? (Score:3, Interesting)
Fine per day going forward as well (Score:5, Interesting)
I do not know what will change, but it's a situation that cannot stand - not to mention that if Microsoft simply coughts up the fine indefinatley it will be raised to an amount they cannot ignore as easily.
Re:so? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think that's what is being said. MS is only being fined for mis-conduct... they have not... so far at least, been told to get out of the EU.
Sad day for America (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:so? (Score:5, Interesting)
Easy. Refuse to honor their IP. All MS copyrights in europe become public domain, all patents are invalid. Done deal.
Re:Will this really make a difference? (Score:2, Interesting)
When a company or private individual refuses to pay a fine, what happens is they have the tax authorities impound goods or money up to the amount. And if they still refuse, the impounded assets are sold off to pay the fine (with any surplus going back to the previous owner of course). In the case of MS, they have various national subsidiaries with associated corporate accounts that would easily cover a fine of even this size. Nobody is going to stop selling Windows over this.
In practice, of course, if a fine is finalized, MS (or any company) pays. Having authorities raid your offices, with pictures of grim-looking officials carrying off financial records by the boxfuls is enough of a PR disaster that refusing isn't an option - especially since non-payment shows up pretty starkly in the company credit and especially since you end up paying the money in any case so you don't even actually gain anything by the pointless gesture.
the irony (Score:3, Interesting)
maybe time to add a template for overseas too? since
Re:so? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sad day for America (Score:3, Interesting)
You in Europe you adhere to Europe rules. European country do or get find.
WHat makes an American company working in Europe think it does not have to adhere to our rules?
they screwed up, they must pay the price
Re:Great... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not really fair to judge a business model when that's what you're putting it up against. That's like saying that a machine gun is inferior to a flintlock musket, if you make the start condition one where the musket is pressed to the head of the machine gunner -- it doesn't have to be superior in order to win, it just has to barely work.
Any business model that can even keep itself alive when in direct competition with a firm as aggressive as Microsoft would probably do very well in an actual free market.
the king solomon route (Score:3, Interesting)
Ahh, but there is an alternative punishment - something we can do to corporations that we can't do to people. Cut them in half!
However this raises an immediate question: How do you ensure that the resulting two (or more) entities don't just collude and price-fix their way along as if they were still whole?
It's easy to imagine - two big campuses in Redmond, one given the MS Office suite, one given the Windows codebase - each told by judicial decree that they can no longer cooperate
This is why I wish that as part of a Windows interoperability and documentation settlement, the EU had the authority to say, "Okay, Microsoft. You know that corporate branch you have in Mountain View, where you run all the hotmail services? They're a separate company now, and THEY own MS Office. Expect a phone call from the department chief down there in about a week, asking for all the source code. I'm sure he'll want to establish a relocation package for all your Office coders, too. By the way, the new company is called Officesoft. Play nice with them."
You'd be amazed what a difference physical separation can make in terms of corporate attitude... Unfortunately, the opportunity for a remedy like this for Microsoft withered down to nothing in the first year of Bush Jr(tm)(r)(c)'s reign. Now innovation on the OS front has been STALLED, for 95% of the world, for the past FIFTEEN YEARS. >:(
Re:This is absurd. (Score:1, Interesting)
The whole thing is absurd - not for the reasons that you give, but for the fact that Microsoft is a bigger economy than some member states of the EU. And we've allowed corporations like this to grow so big that it takes a supra-national body like the EC to make an impact on them at all. Why would the EC go after a small open source company like yours? How can you even comprehend that as a possibility?
Microsoft made a big mistake and they're paying for it. Apple may have made one with Fairplay, but I don't personally think so.
Not being privy to the future, I would have to guess that Linux kernel documentation will not stifle an industry for its absence.
Still... document your code. It's just good practice.
Re:Great... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a fine. It's not meant to distribute the money in that particular market equally under all competitors. It's meant as a punishment for Microsoft.
And the idea that the EC is going to decide what software is going to be developed and by whom and how, gives me the creepers. If you know the EC's record on scientific funding, the thought of them funding software development will turn you into a Redmond client for the rest of your life.
Re:Is it really fair? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because that is NOT what they are being fined for.
Microsoft was convicted of breaking the law, and the court levied NO punishment - I repeat *NO* punishment for that crinimal behaviour. The court merely ordered that they stop engaging in that criminal behavior, and ordered a remedy merely to stop the damage to the market from continuing. The remedy specifically being an order to permit a version of Windows with Media Player unbundled, and to document the protocols to permit competition in other software markets on an even footing. (Note that the US anti-trust conviction of Microsoft was purely remedy and carried no punative component either.)
So why is Microsoft being fined well over a billion dollars? Because they did something else illegal!
Microsoft is being fined for willful contempt of a lawful court order! The conviction and cort order was long ago. Microsoft deadline for compliance with the court order was over a year and a half ago! And like an overdue library book, Microsoft has been racking up a daily fine for their willfull disreguard with a lawful court order.
Microsoft has drawn out this battle for so long that Microsoft gets to reap the rewards of their illegal behavior, and any remedy to terminate that particular illegal behavior becomes null and void. By the time this fight ends, Windows Vista will be just about to hit the market. Any documentation for working with previous operating systems becomes pretty well moot. Microsoft is using an illegal delying tactic to defeat the court order - to defeat the court itself. And delaying and refusing to comply with a court order carries a very specific penalty at law. That illegal behavior carries a signifigant $ daily fine. And that fine is entirely under Microsoft's control. Microsoft has chosen day after day to continue violating the law. Microsoft has chosen day after day to increase the fine they have to pay. Microsoft could have gotten off with $ZERO fine had they complied a year and a half ago.
-
Re:Will this really make a difference? (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought they did that because the need to pay 5 billion developers for 10 years every to make a new version of windows
Re:This is not going to happen. (Score:4, Interesting)
Contemplating their business practices merely inspires loathing.
Proof of pirated code (Score:1, Interesting)
You tell me - what else could M$ be hiding? Why else would they be funding SCO to fraudulently claim that the Linux Kernel contains SCO's code?
Andy Out!
Re:Will this really make a difference? (Score:5, Interesting)
You need to clean your glasses. This is not a money grab. This is Microsoft CHOOSING to give away money.
Microsoft was convicted of breaking the law, and the fine and penaty was ZERO. NO FINE, NO PENALTY. This is like you break a storefront window, and the court orders you not to break any more windows and to clean up the broken glass all over the storefront and to replace the window you broke. The court requires you to stop breaking the law, and to remedy the damage you did. You (and Micrsoft) get the chance to away scott-free with NO PUNISHMENT for breaking the law.
But then you do something really stupid. You replace the window you broke, but you willfully act in contempt of court and refuse to sweep up the broken glass all over the sidewalk in front of the store. The court gives you a week to sweep up the broken glass, and still you refuse to comply. The court then levies a contempt of court fine of $X per day. And then for the next YEAR AND A HALF you still refuse to sweep up the broken glass. And you call it a "money grab" when you rack up over a year and a half of fines?
Microsoft was given ample tiome to comply. Microsoft CHOSE day after day to willfully act in contempt of a lawfull court order. Microsoft CHOSE to rack up a dailly fine. Microsoft basically CHOSE to give away money day after day. Microsoft could have gotten off scott-free with $ZERO fine.
they'd refuse to pay it
Are you STUPID? Do you seriously think that you can hop on a plane, set up shop doing business in some other country, that you can BREAK THE LAW in that country day after day, and that you could get away with simply refusing to pay court ordered fines?
No, you do not go into some country and dick around with the government like that. At first the courts are nice and simply ask you to pay the money you owe. If you are a moron and attempt to refuse to pay a lawful debt to the government, then the government simply orders the banks to seize and turn over the owed debt from any accounts. And the government can simply order customs to seize any imports/exports from the territory to pay the debt. And then the government can simply order the police to physically seize any physical assets and any and all buildings and land. And if you really piss off the government they can order the police to start physically arrest and imprison the individuals stupid enough to persist in disobeying the law and disobeying lawful court orders.
watch the uproar that would ensue when it became illegal to sell Windows in the EU
Oh, that one is my favorite part! LOLOL!
Let's assume that Microsoft somehow managed to empty all of the money from all EU bank accounts and had no future payments due for collection from EU companies, so that the courts could not simply order banks to hand over the money owed. And let's assume that Microsoft somehow magically owns no offices and owns no seizeable assets and property anywhere in the EU. And let's assume that all Microsoft employees manage to flee the countries and are unarrestable for noncompliance with the law. And let's assume that the courts in the US and Japan and the rest of the planet decline to honor debt collection in cooperation with the EU courts and decline to locally seize any bank accounts and assets.
Let's assume ALL of that. Let's assume that Microsoft could successfully play a game of "Nya nya nya you can't catch me!" with the EU legal system.
Then it gets REALLY fun! Because if Microsoft dissess the entire EU court system and cuts off all contact with the EU legal system, then GUESS WHAT! Then Microsoft cannot avail themselves of benefits and protections of the EU court system. The EU courts can refuse to accept any cases from Microsoft attempting to sue for enforcement of copyright or patent or trademark infringment. The EU courts can effectively null and void all of Microsoft's copyrights and patents and trademarks. All of Microsoft's software would effectively become public domain.
So rather than "illegal to sell Windows in the EU", in fact it could ultimately become perfectly legal for anyone and everyone to copy and modify and sell any and all Microsoft software at will.
-
Re:so? (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that the European Patent Office (EPO) claims that they are not regulated by the EU. They say that they were formed before the EU (as we know it today) and therefore they only have to report to individual countries instead of reporting to the EU. And since these countries cannot agree on a common action against the EPO, then the EPO can keep on using their weird interpretation of the patent treaty: according to the EPO, software as such cannot be patented but it can be patented if that software is running on a computer.
Re:300 engineers (Score:1, Interesting)
The source couldn't be used as the documentation, as it is encumbered by copyright and licensing issues (i.e. you'd never be able to work on a project to implement anything that was compliant (in the emulating it's behaviour sense) with it once you'd actually seen the source, thus making the whole point of this moot). The EU sensibly chose to tell MS where to go with this 'We'll let you know as long as you never do anything to compete with us knowing this information' approach.
So, this left MS still having to document it's API and protocols to the extent that a third party could use this information to produce the same behaviour. Exactly as specified by the court. So they did say what they wanted.
As to arbitrary dates, well, all project management and so in is effectively arbitrary dates, just ones that you think are well reasoned, and give enough time to perform a task. So, in reality, the arbitrary date wasn't that arbitrary. It gave MS enough time (from standard industry timescales) to achieve it's aim of producing requested documentation.
Re:ouch! (Score:2, Interesting)
1) You're from Norway.
You pay over 25 Euros for a Pizza that costs 5 Euros in Sweden because Norway became, like, really rich off oil-money, and then completely squandered that money on bad investments, leaving you with the highest taxes in the world and a pension fund that dwindles in comparison to what you should have had from the beginning. A car that costs 25.000 Euros in Sweden costs you more than 3 times that amount, and 95% of that money goes into the losses of said bad investments. You have nice fjords, but tend to commit mass suicide because it's cold and dark all year, and a pint of beer costs more than a car.
2) You're from Switzerland.
Your parents didn't do anything as the Nazi's were slaughtering Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals during the holocaust. Moreover, you gave the same Nazi's bank accounts in which they dumped property and money from said Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals. When the Nazi's lost the war, you basically kept the money to yourself. With that money you built a nice country which is clean, has nice buildings and good roads, and where all the clocks run very accurately. You pay 20 Euros for a meal at McDonalds in spite of the fact that social welfare is something you have to save up/pay for in advance. Also, in spite of a hard attitude towards drugs, you have more junkies in Zürich's central station than in all of the BeNeLux.
Now tell me, does that sound as though you have a right to complain about the EU? It doesn't sound to me as though you should open your mouth for one second even.
By the sound of it, you are French- or Italian-speaking Swiss, because no Norwegian would ever speak English that badly. This means three things:
1) You know all about vague bank accounts in which money from dubious parties disappears. You know far more about it than any country or government in the EU.
2) We don't want your lot in the EU in the first place, thank you very much.
3) I currently live in Israel. I want my wife's granddad Avi's golden teeth back, with 60 years of interest, thank you.
Re:so? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:so? (Score:4, Interesting)
The EU has countless weapons in stock, from migration plans to subsidies to large-scale grants. If Microsoft pisses off the EU enough Brussels might just decide to pump a couple hundred million Euros into Mandrake in order to develop an alternative to every product Microsoft sells, including the XBox controller. Or they make a law that keeps Microsoft from bribing institutions with free licenses. This is a big game of Nomic and Microsoft is not allowed to make up rules. The EU is.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:so? (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft owns what, 95+% of the global desktop OS market?
There would be a blizzard of competition.
If Microsoft ceased to do business, then the numerous other companies trying to market their solutions could fill the gap. They would rush to, if they knew the giant from Redmond was dead, or at least asleep for a while. No reason to be scared of having the oxygen sucked out of the room by the monoploistic OS maker.
Re:so? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Linux can win if services are open and protocols are simple, transparent. Microsoft can only win if services are closed and protocols are complex, opaque."
So here is proof that the closed APIs are not necessary for MS software, as they might state, but a preplanned way to make war with Linux.
And to all you unenlightend peope that will say that MS isn't making war with Linux, that is just the price of doing business, I will direct you to another portion of the same document.. "Long term credibility exists if there is no way you can be driven out of business in the near term. This forces change in how competitors deal with you."
and the translation of that into understandable language..
"Note the terminology used here driven out of business. MS believes that putting other companies out of business is not merely collateral damage -- a byproduct of selling better stuff -- but rather, a direct business goal. To put this in perspective, economic theory and the typical honest, customer-oriented businessperson will think of business as a stock-car race -- the fastest car with the most skillful driver wins. Microsoft views business as a demolition derby -- you knock out as many competitors as possible, and try to maneuver things so that your competitors wipe each other out and thereby eliminate themselves. In a stock car race there are many finishers and thus many drivers get a paycheck. In a demolition derby there is just one survivor. Can you see why Microsoft and freedom of choice are absolutely in two different universes?"
Re:so? (Score:2, Interesting)
Putting tags around a proprietary binary blob does not an open format make.
Microsoft abused their position 5-10 years ago (though, until deemed a monopoly, they hadn't done anything any other comapny wouldn't also do if given half a chance). Not only does it appear they stopped when caught.
The reason you get accused of fanboyism is right there.
I mean seriously, look at that utter crap you just spewed. When you spout off idiotic nonsense lies as if they were even sane, then you might be a fanboy.
They have continually abused their position since they first had one and continue to do so to this day with no improvement in their behavior whatsoever.
It does not "appear" that they stopped. They absolutely didn't. Just look at the fucking SCO case for Christ's sake.
but MS has since started moving to open formats
The fuck they have. They have moved to DRMk pushing for legislation to criminalize reverse engineering.
Seriously, Dude. There are arguments to be made in favor of MS, but just spouting off lies that are so transparently false to anybody who has paid any attention to the issue does just make you look like a fanboy and a fool.
I'd say, "Nice try", but it wasn't even that.
Re:WGA? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:so? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:so? (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft has not done that.
Showing the source code does not accomplish the goal of allowing other software to EFFECIENTLY communicate with the Windows OS, nor to know what is intended to occur, only what Microsoft has managed to get working and shoved out the door.
Microsoft has neither complied with the letter of the requirement, nor with the intent (as understood by many).
Microsoft could comply, but chooses not to. Maybe there are evil reasons, maybe not. The fine is to help them to want to choose compliance.
I would not call you a fanboy, but you do seem to be going some distance to stick up for Microsoft, a distance that seems to be uncalled for based on the circumstances. And what is up with "Microsoft, which represents the most recent of the great American capitalist successes." You are just THAT close to stepping over the line into fanboy territory.
Some other corrections.
Not open XML, a propriatary version with licensing and redistribution restrictions.
Even before being 'deemed a monopoly' Microsoft was EFFECTIVELY a monopoly - which the court RECOGNIZED, it did not create the situation.
Whether the EU is corrupt or not, it has the power to levy this fine, and for Microsoft to not comply with the requirements that would result in NOT having to pay the fine in the first place does not mean they are standing up for Truth, Justice, and THE AMERICAN WAY!, it just means they think they don't have to obey the same rules as anyone else.
I don't see how the EU is trying to "squash a competitor" (as you say Microsoft has done) when Microsoft is not a competitor to the EU, and the EU is not a competitor to Microsoft.
Sorry, I was wrong. You ARE a fanboy.