EU May Fine Microsoft 349
Yokaze writes: "The Wall Street Journal reports about a leaked European Comission document, that suggests that the EU may fine MS for anti-competitive behaviour. The fine can be up to 10% of the annual revenue, or $2.5 billion and may include the demand to remove certain programs from Windows.
The report harshly criticized MS way of taking influence in the case, even speaking of trying to mislead the observers.
Regarding the report of the WSJ, European Competition Commissioner Mario Monti said, that the case is still at a preliminary stage, since MS still has the right to defend itself at a hearing. Or in his own words: 'To speak of a fine when Microsoft has not yet disputed the Commission's preliminary findings both in fact and law -- as it it's right -- is premature.' Since the original is for subscribers only, take a look at Yahoo or the more detailed report from BBC News. Lastly with some different details a report from Heise in German."
Put the fine to use (Score:4, Interesting)
IOW, fine MS a billion or so dollars and use it to fund an (OSX-like) GUI for, say, linux (or FreeBSD, or whatever).
MS would gladly pay the money to get out of this mess. And it would be the only viable way (that I can think of) to actually have a real Windows alternative. Everybody wins.
I don't know if our courts are allowed to make creative punishments like that. But it probably could be a decent settlement.
--tim
Re:Put the fine to use (Score:4, Interesting)
But Microsoft is a monopoly you say... -- Exactly the point of the case.. Don't allow Microsoft to use their normal strong-arm tacticts (at the fear of further punishment, break-ups) so any and all competitors won't be crushed.
That is why I think any one who wants the government to force Microsoft to open Windows' source code is on crack. Well, that and another reason-- if we all agree that Windows sucks *ss, then why do we want the source code so bad?
Re:Put the fine to use (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Put the fine to use (Score:2)
It's not - it's the govt's job to promote the public good. In this case the govt has a law that encourages competition because it's for the public good. M$ has been found guilty in a court of law of breaching that law and is now going to be punished for doing that. Punishment often has two components - the first restitution to those hurt by a crime, and a punative component designed to hurt the guilty party in a manner intended to discourage them from repeating their transgression.
It seems to me that fining M$, who appears to have money flowing from all bodily orifices, isn't going to have a lot of effect, unless it's a really big fine - enough to hurt their stock price (and therefore cause the company's managers to be put under pressure to change by the stockholders). I think that a having smaller fine, one that's more likely to be upheld in court, and then taking that money and using it to fund Open Source programs would be a wonderfull way to truely punish M$, encourage them to really compete, and would in the long term provide relief, in the form of a viable alternative, to those people hurt by the existing abuse of monopoly
Re:Put the fine to use (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Put the fine to use (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Put the fine to use (Score:3, Funny)
Others here have already said what a stupid idea this is.
So at the risk of being modded down as redundant, I'll just echo the same.
What a stupid idea it is to fine a lawbreaker and use the proceeds in an attempt to try and undo the irreperable harm the lawbreaker has caused with their criminal conduct. Stupid man.
The government should not be trying to take money from our poor tobacco companies to pay for health care costs caused by lung cancer. And it would be insane to try to use seized organized crime assets to fund law enforcement efforts. Where will this insanity end? Next you'll be telling me that we should use seized assets from terrorist organizations to help fund the war on terrorism.
Don't suggest such stupid ideas here. After all, this is slashdot. We must protect our corporations. If we were to fine Microsoft it would hopelessly plunge the world economy into a downward spiral from which it would never recover and would ultimately spell the doom of everyone on the planet. And the court or govenment has no business trying to fine anyone. Or taxes either.
Re:Put the fine to use (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Put the fine to use (Score:2)
Mod up Geritol, please!
(It took me 2.5 paragraphs before I noticed the fishing line tied to the front end, but there's no excuse for not getting it by the end of the post.)
Re:Put the fine to use (Score:2)
...and Microsoft in return would raise the price of windows %10 to make up for the cost. Microsoft is very good at managing money. I bet they may even put out a notice telling consumers you will be ripped off by %10 and here are the email addresses of politicians to express your concerns over this whole thing.
Re:Put the fine to use (Score:2)
Re:this aint communism (Score:2, Interesting)
That is not comparable, unless the life savings in question, was profit from a crime.
Are you in favor of criminals getting to keep ill-gotten gains? For example, if I rob a bank and get caught, do I still get to keep the money? The situation is no different with Microsoft and the sales revenue that they got from illegal trade-restraining per-processor contracts. If Microsoft were willing to compete in a free market, none of this would be happening to them. Free market advocates != commies. Law and justice advocates != commies.
What amazes me is the fine's 10% of revenue limit. That's like I rob a bank and get caught, and only have to give 10% back.
Re:this aint communism (Score:2)
A con-artist would be forced to give all of the money back plus some. (which would be a fine way of dealing with MS force companies to give an extimate of how much damage MS has caused them, then give them 20% of that figure (I'm saying this because companies overestimate damages to the point of about 5x))
A company who sells you goods that don't work and offers no warrenties would eventually get punished and forced to replace items for free.
I could come up with more examples, but I'm tired. I ain't got now job, so how can I pay the rent.
Re:Put the fine to use (Score:2, Insightful)
I wasn't aware that there was any expectation that Microsoft had to be happy with anything that results from their "anti-competitive behaviour".
In fact, I'm almost positive that a punishment, such as a fine, is expressly intended to be something that makes Microsoft unhappy.
>...a better and even more widely used alterantive to windows is most certainly NOT something they would like to see.
Good point. That might level the playing field and disassemble their monopoly. Microsoft wouldn't like that.
But, as to using the fine to fund an opensource consumer OS:
I'm having a hard time imagining how that could ever happen. Is there any precedent for government imposed fines to be given to a third party for *any* purpose?
Hey... (Score:1)
And yet you curse the DMCA? (Score:2, Flamebait)
I'd be happy if Microsoft had the huevos to not even bother to dispute the charges and just pulled all of its software out of the EU, flipping them the bird and leaving them to scramble for dry ground. It'd be a trial by fire for free software supporters, and I'd be very interested to see how it turns out.
Re:And yet you curse the DMCA? (Score:4, Insightful)
We can only hope! Can you imagine all that money that used to go to MS licenses going instead to fund new software development because Microsoft is too arrogant to play nice, so it takes its ball and goes home? Something good would come out of that, I'm sure.
The first thing that would be done is every single MS proprietaty protocol will be reverse-engineered (and legally, too, at least for Europe!). Even if those of us in the U.S. wouldn't be able to use it legally, I'm sure it would be useful to us.
Re:And yet you curse the DMCA? (Score:4, Insightful)
Au contraire! The EU has its foundation in removing barriers of trade (primarily in Europe of course..). And the borders are getting less visible for every year.
You may also say, that removing barriers of trade is all about securing a healthy competition on a larger scale in a smaller world. This is exactly the same reason for which you have laws against monopolies - to secure a healthy competition.
Re:And yet you curse the DMCA? (Score:2, Insightful)
That state of affairs where the power of government is divided between a few hands, we usually call "civil war."
That state of affairs where the power of government is divided between many hands, we usually call "anarchy", or "lawlessness".
Re:And yet you curse the DMCA? (Score:2, Insightful)
And who would it benefit for MS to pull out of Europe? The population of Europe is probably greater than that of the US. They'd lose a huge amount of money, much more than the 10% that the EU could fine them.
For all their faults, Microsoft know how to make money.
Re:Hmm. Interesting. (Score:2, Insightful)
BTW whats the alternative? If you think they shouldnt be allowed to fine foreign companies then I assume you must be suggesting that all anti trust laws be abolished (since fines are the only way you have any sway over foreign companies, and if you can escape all anti trust laws simply by setting up shop in the country with the laws which suit you then there is very little use for them anywhere in a world with a globalized economy).
Once they threaten that, they're dead (in europe) (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, they might, just for short term tactics.
However such a move would create a shock in Europe, making everyone to realise how very dangerous the current situation is, being so dependant upon the software of a single (foreign) company.
Surely, this shock would initiate a big effort to get rid of this dangerous dependance and spell the end of MSFT software in Europe.
I can only hope they pull out their software or at least threaten to do it. It might finally open the eyes of many.
Re:Once they threaten that, they're dead (in europ (Score:2, Interesting)
Pulling out of the EU would create a huge profit space for competition.
Re:Once they threaten that, they're dead (in europ (Score:2, Funny)
Hah. Code Red, I Love You, Sir Cam, Nimda, whatever, should have tought that lesson long time ago.
Re:And yet you curse the DMCA? (Score:2)
Thereby proving the point that they have not only a monopoly, but that said monopoly is a danger.
Re:And yet you curse the DMCA? (Score:2)
Re:And yet you curse the DMCA? (Score:2, Insightful)
Looking out or the people (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this will have a major impact on Microsoft's business practices here and overseas, as I really can't envision Microsoft making a EU compliant Windows sans IE, Windows Media, Chat, etc., for them and a bundled Windows for the rest of the world.
And it's a testament to the impact of globalizaton, and interesting to see how foreign government's can influence American businesses in such a major way.
Shame on the bush administraion for letting up on Microsoft. And for the record, I am a huge Microsoft fan, and believe they do make some superior products. Note I said "some". I also love some of thier business practices, and believe business students will be studing these for years to come in universities all over the USA.
Re:Looking out or the people (Score:4, Insightful)
I also love some of thier business practices, and believe business students will be studing these for years to come in universities all over the USA.
Which ones are you referring to?
Re:Looking out or the people (Score:2, Interesting)
Their marketing strategy to basic consumers is top notch and rival such companies such as Proctor & Gamble (in fact, they have their Marketing Director).
They do extensive market research and consumer testing.
Their financial practices are in order and have over $30 billion in cold hard cash (not stocks) sitting in the bank to weather any storm (most companies in the world don't have a market cap near 30 billion, never mind cash).
I agree with some of your points. I can't stand their "Embrace and Extend" strategy, their bullying of competitors, arrogant attitude towards government and competitors, and their "Big Brother" approach to software licensing and registration. I believe they are a monopoly, but haven't destroyed all competition yet.
Sony will still be a strong competitor in the video came console market, AOL stomps all over MSN's subscription base and Real Networks kill's MS in the digital media market.
Re:Looking out or the people (Score:2)
Their financial practices are in order and have over $30 billion in cold hard cash (not stocks) sitting in the bank to weather any storm (most companies in the world don't have a market cap near 30 billion, never mind cash).
According to one of Microsoft's witnesses in the trial, they keep track of their sales data on little scraps of paper :)
Re:Looking out or the people (Score:3, Insightful)
You better believe people will be studying what Microsoft does. People study crimes, or diseases, too! You mustn't assume people will be studying Microsoft to _emulate_ them: for one, you can't. There's only one Microsoft and no room for another. Once we've straightened that out it will only be in a context where nobody else has such an easy, unopposed path to that kind of economic authority.
Business students will be studying Microsoft as an example of an unsustainable local profit maximum, kind of like a pyramid scheme. If conditions are right you can ride such a situation to the very top- at which point, you're damaging capitalism so badly that you can't continue, and you can't expand any further, and the best possible outcome is decline and fall. Screw things up and you're looking at a crash, instead. That is of _great_ interest to business students, particularly ones that seek long rewarding careers in business.
Re:Looking out or the people (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Looking out or the people (Score:2, Funny)
Not to mention students of criminology :)
Oh really??? (Score:2)
You can't?? Surely you must be aware of what lengths corporations will go to [slashdot.org] in order to maximize profits in multiple markets.
Re:Looking out or the people (Score:2)
Why? I work in telecom. We make equipment that supports Sonet in Europe and SDH in the US. You have products everywhere that are customized for target markets. The EU is a HUGE, why would M$ flinch at a customized version for such a HUGE market especially when they already have customized version for French, German, Spanish,...?
Europe is just out to get the States (Score:3, Insightful)
Over the last six weeks, the European Union has given a big thumbs-down to a series of telecom and technology mergers driven by U.S.-based companies, from AOL-Time Warner to WorldCom and Sprint. Pointing to the global reach of these proposed deals, Mario Monti, the European competition commissioner, seems to have thrown down the gauntlet to a number of American companies with market-grabbing megamergers on their minds.
By far, the most effective strike was the ruling by the EU Competition Commission against WorldCom's proposed takeover of Sprint. Monti reasoned that yoking together the companies' significant Internet backbone holdings in Europe would give the merged entity so much power that it could effectively make decisions independent of both its competitors and its customers.
Late last week, WorldCom and Sprint formally withdrew all merger plans, officially burying any sort of union.
The EU's move to reject the deal has raised suspicions in the United States about what the Europeans are up to. Timing is a factor in the paranoia. The WorldCom-Sprint move comes on the heels of Brussels' June 19 announcement that it plans to launch a four-month investigation into the AOL-Time Warner deal. American misgivings increased when, barely a week after nixing the WorldCom-Sprint marriage, Monti prevented Microsoft from taking a controlling stake in British cable company Telewest Communications.
So, WorldCom-Sprint fell apart because of Monti and his gang, right? Not so fast.
The Union's ruling was hardly the dealbreaker. It occurred after the U.S. Justice Department had already said it would block the merger and after WorldCom and Sprint had formally withdrawn their application from the EU.
That said, suspicions of anti-Americanism persist nevertheless. After all, the EU hasn't demonstrated the same level of concern with similar deals involving European companies. It approved the merger of Mannesmann and Vodafone, reported to be the world's largest hostile takeover, once Mannesmann ditched its British mobile-phone operator, Orange. Of the dozen EU media and technology cases the Competition Commission has considered since June, four have focused on U.S. companies, and all four have led to extended investigations that blocked mergers, ultimately limiting U.S. control.
If there is a conspiracy afoot, plenty of observers in the United States are ready to root it out. The Washington Post even goes so far as to suggest Monti is trying to stymie U.S. companies to give European telecommunications and Internet companies a chance to catch up. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, hard-core "Ameriphobes" were happy to see Europe apparently standing up to U.S. globalization.
But between the posturing and the transatlantic bluster, the real story behind the U.S. companies' woes has less to do with favoritism than it does the regulatory obstacle course that huge U.S. and European deals will face in the future.
Rather than gunning for American companies, the EU's Competition Commission is more likely reacting to the size of the deals being brokered. The scale of many of the latest proposed mergers is unprecedented. The companies best positioned to pull off these megadeals right now just happen to be American. But that won't be true for long.
"I don't think there are any grounds to say the commission is out to get U.S. companies," says Olivier Kaiser, chair of the competition subcommittee for the American Chamber of Commerce's EU office. "The economy in general is American these days. It just happens to be those American companies that merge. The commission is just applying the rules, but applying them to bigger mergers."
Even Microsoft, which has come under European scrutiny twice in recent months, bears no grudge. It is currently facing an EU investigation for anticompetitive behavior in the packaging and sale of its Windows 98 software. And after consultation with the EU on the company's plans to invest in Telewest, Microsoft agreed to restructure the terms of the deal so it would not have a controlling interest.
Aim Gun, Shoot Foot... (Score:5, Interesting)
Monopoly cases are HARD to prove (and should be, as bad as a true monopoly can be I think the bar should be set very high when determining if a company is an abusive monopoly). While under investigation Intel played ball, didn't get into a "winning at all cost" mentality, consented to a few behavioral changes, and came out of it intact.
I wonder if the threat of a big $$$ (er.. $EU) settlement will finally piss a few of the large MS stockholders into applying a little pressure on MS management to change tactics.
Re:Aim Gun, Shoot Foot... (Score:3, Informative)
Ermmm, most of the large stockholders are Microsoft executives, so I rather doubt it.
Simply Shocked (Score:3, Funny)
Wait, it looks like they do.
Re:Simply Shocked (Score:2)
So your solution is to remove the concept of super user, User configuration tools, etc. and give all of that functionality to the Microsoft .NET under Passport??
Remember, XP ships with the equivalent of Root as the default setting for the system. All Users are Root.
You trapped yourself, given the actual practices of MS.
Actually, the solution the thing you call a problem is to keep more people clueless. now what would benefit humanity more, to increase the amount of cluelessness? or to decrease it?
Re:Aim Gun, Shoot Foot... (Score:2)
"You Will Never Find a More Wretched
Hive
Aim Gun, Miss Foot, Collect Check, Reload... (Score:3, Insightful)
Judging by how lucrative MS's practices are, I almost wish some of the stocks I own would get in the habit of shooting themselves in the foot. Eventually MS will tap out, but it's been a hell of a ride for a long time -- which is about all you can ask for as a shareholder. Err, other than ethical behavior, that is; but that only concerns a few eccentric cranks.
I have on occasion been in business situations that involved ticklish ethical questions. For example in the early 90s I was involved with a group where the marketing director wanted to carpet bomb various usenet groups with postings (this was before anyone heard of spam). If I hadn't already been an old timer who could point out the damage to our reputation that thoughtless posting on what was a cooperative medium, we would have been pioneering spammers. It's hard to maintain your integrity and maximize your chances for success. More often than not these aspects of a decision get confused, which if you think about it is not surprising: if you are successful, almost nobody questions you; if you fail, then they question everything, including your ethics. And people tend look to each other for confirmation that they haven't gone beyond the pale of decency. It's normally a healthy thing. But success tends to bless any practice that would be reviled if failure followed it, independent of its own usefulness or morality. I suspect that given enough success a group of people will eventually develop a culture that is proud of things that disgust ordinary people.
A little failure is character building; but MS is a company that has never ever had any failure that mattered. So, is it any wonder that shame doesn't figure into their corporate culture? It looks to us like they shot themselve in the foot because they acted in a way that would make anyone else blush. But it doesn't matter, because none of it has affected the bottom line. And, it seems like with the DOJ rolling over and dying, once again the bullet has missed their foot.
Which given normal business psychology justifies everything that they have done. Like the GM chairman who said "What's good for GM is good for the country," they must have a very unshakable sense of the rightness of their cause.
Re:Aim Gun, Miss Foot, Collect Check, Reload... (Score:2)
Yes, Microsoft has dodged some bullets, but I wonder if it was out of brilliance or just dumb luck (I would less of the first and more of the second). The fact that they *keep* reloading and aiming for thier foot -- to me -- says that one of these days they're going to hit the target, which in this case may be the EU fine (should it ever come to be. They may dodge that one too).
Had Microsoft (Gates in particular) not shot his mouth off on national TV the day that Microsoft signed the concent agreement with the Gov't in the early 90s one wonders whether the Gov't would have gone after MS a second time (or at least as hard as they did) (I remember reading somewhere that the DOJ were livid after seeing Gates say "This will not effect MS business practices in the least" right after the agreement).
Remember, the first anti-trust investigation hardly played at all in the mainstream press. Gates and MS were still considered to be the good guys (well, to everyone except maybe IBM and some other software developers). It didn't tarnish MS reputation at all and they continued to do "business as usual". After the second investigation and trial there was considerable image damage to MS. Not to mention that even though it looks like they'll get a slap on the wrist at worst, they have been found guilty of abusing a monopoly position and will forever have to worry about having the Feds (and state gov't) focusing on their behavior.
Microsoft continuing to do thing such as obstruting investigation, lying, mis-representing things, etc do *way* more harm than good. If you get caught it just sours you in the view of those who are judging you. It happend in the DOJ case, and they were fortunatle enough to have a judge who talked too much followed by a favorable change in the executive branch to help bail them out. In Europe, though, they may not be so lucky.
Same thing, only different (Score:4, Insightful)
It says that bundling new features into Windows and Windows server software "has a chilling effect on innovation and competition," according to the report.
That kind of wording is almost identical to that used by the companies which have complained to both Brussels and the US Justice Department about Microsoft's behaviour.
The DoJ and the EU say the same thing, but only the EU will have the resolve to see this through. Opposed to the DoJ's potential wristslpa, the EU starts with a monetary fine and then gets to the heart of the problem! Instead of trying to break up the company, just break up the software, get rid of the bundling which causes the interoperability with other software, allowing other software vendors to break into the MS Windows software market.
Good news, of a sort. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet.
OK,
- B
Re:Good news, of a sort. (Score:2)
Remember that politicians and political appointees do very little unless it is influenced by either their constituents or campaign contributors. I don't see the greater public up in arms about the bunling (heck, they don't even seem to know what it means or why it is bad) so it's probably the campaign contributions. Microsoft contributed little or no money until a couple of years ago and now they're paying for it.
Re:Good news, of a sort. (Score:2, Informative)
The European Comission is just the prosecution.
May I draw an analogy:
You're driving too fast.
A policeman stops you and fines you.
Now you can try to convince the policeman not to fine you ("it's an emergency").
Then he may still fine you or maybe let you go depending on his judgement.
Is the policeman, judge, jury and prosecution?
Somehow yes. But not really, because you still have the right to appeal to court.
Same with MS, there is still the European Court.
Cajones (Score:2, Flamebait)
removing of programs (Score:4, Insightful)
the average user can not be bother to go and look for better/other software and is then tied in to using the default microsoft products. in a way this is supposed to be userfriendly, but you can see it as pushing out the competition. do you really think the avererage user would try and find a different email client, even after all the security alerts, when outlook express is just sitting there ready to use?
i think not.
of course, i would imagine that most slashdot'ers would have the sense to use what ever program they want for the task, but not the average joe. they'll use whatever is there, or most convinient to use.
this is pretty much the main reason why so many people use outlook/outlook express, because it's there!
doesnt give other apps much of a chance does it.
just my thoughts...
Re:removing of programs (Score:2, Interesting)
Would you say the same for a Linux Distro then? Personally, I enjoy Linux coming with a ton of free apps. Saves me from downloading them. If Microsoft wants to give it to you "free", why not use it? It makes it easier for the non-techie to use. Though I wouldn't advocate having Grandma using Outlook Express to open e-mails with subjects "I Love You;)"
Besides, I just got the final OEM version of XP Pro on my desktop. Hell, I like it. I think its better than Windows 2000 (or atleast it runs on my system better than Win2k did).
Re:removing of programs (Score:2, Informative)
with windows, you still have a choice to some degree, but it certainly is a lot more inconvenient than firing up, say, outlook express.
as for you running XP, each to their own i guess
Re:removing of programs (Score:2)
Why did I like IE? First off, if it didn't come with the computer then I never would have used it. Second, it loaded FAST. And you know what? I _knew_ that it was because of preloading. But who cares? Why should that stop me? Bottom line is that it loaded faster than Netscape so I used it. I also used Outlook Express instead of Netscape mail. I ended up using that before I had installed Netscape, and I got used to it.
I consider myself a techie. But if I was able to fall into this trap then how the hell would your "average Joe" ever get out? Anytime Microsoft bundles an application with the OS, it will mean the _end_ of any competing applications. It may be user-friendly and convenient for the rest of us, but it destroys competition. This is truly a problematic situation, even if you are a Microsoft die-hard.
Linux distributions do contain a lot of bundled software. Take the latest version of any of the major distros and the number of packages included will put any Windows install to shame. However, this isn't quite the same problem as Windows software bundling. Linux distributions consist of tools coming from various sources, so there isn't this "master software vendor." Also, often times many different programs that do the same thing are included (how many email clients come with Slackware? I can count at least 6) Finally, there are many Linux distributions to choose from, so again you're not getting force-fed by the master software vendor.
Linux distributions areall about choice. Microsoft is not.
Re:removing of programs (Score:2)
That's all a distro is. Most distributors do some leg work on the software that they eventually distribute, but by large, they don't actually produce any of it. And they don't have to have meetings and make deals to put any of it on the CD, they just do it. Such is free software.
With Windows, though, all that stuff on the CD is either a Microsoft piece of code or some code that got on there via a hearty round of business meetings. There certainly was no end-user input on the subject of which of a particular genre of gizmo was chosen.
Take these two examples:
Red Hat was at one time, and I haven't followed much, but probably still is a very big GNOME supporter. That is, they employed quite a few developers who hacked on GNOME. However, since KDE is just as or more popular, it's also on the CD. Mind you that despite Red Hat's involvement, GNOME is still not a "Red Hat product".
Microsoft produced Internet Explorer. I don't think there is any doubt that Internet Explorer is a Microsoft product, or for that matter that it is a Microsoft product to a far greater extent than even Red Hat Package Manager is a "Red Hat product". Jump back a few years and think about browser market share in, for example, 1997. Did Microsoft ever include the more popular browser in its distribution of Windows? Not until recently, when the browser it did include became the most popular browser. Exactly the same situation exists with WinAmp and Windows Media Player, with the exception that there is still hope for WinAmp if certain goverments and their appropriate organs rightly apply the law.
Odd stuff (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, how on earth can windows media player be the KEY feature so Sun (the major complaining company in this case) sells less servers... Does the EU have any person on board with a clue or not?
(mind you: next time these clueless morons are sueing a linux related company over what they think shouldn't be happening while they don't understand one single bit (pun intended))
Re:Odd stuff (Score:2)
This is by the way not a criminal thing but an economical thing. Thus a judge has very little to say in this. A judge can only weigh evidence pro and contra. And from what i have learned over the years from everything concerning MS it will be more contra than pro MS.
And how are judges in the US independent from the government? Please do not look at what they should be but at what they are...
Re:Odd stuff (Score:2, Informative)
For example:
"I don't know this for sure, since IANAL, but how can a government first make its own laws and then by these own laws sue a company to pay a fine to that same government ? Isn't that odd? Shouldn't an independent judge, that is: independent of the government , rule on this, instead of the government ? "
-Dennis
No, that's not true (Score:2)
Re:Odd stuff (Score:3, Informative)
No, the executive branch does, the police.
But you have the right to appeal the decision at a court.
From the official site [eu.int], more exactly from here [eu.int].
So they don't enact law, but what is their task?
Among other: (same source)
Don't mix the European Commission (EC) with the European Council (EC).
It's no decision, neither an "objective statement" it's a "statement of objections". And Microsoft still has to explain its view.
Lastly they can still appeal the European Court of Justice [eu.int]
how on earth can windows media player be the KEY feature so Sun (the major complaining company in this case) sells less servers... Does the EU have any person on board with a clue or not?
Well, since they've drawn their own conclusions, and not just reiterated Suns demands, it seams they have at least one.
You're surely a competitor of the free market, please explain to me how bundling of products helps you as a consumer?
Do you get more choices?
Lower prices?
Im all for this... (Score:3, Interesting)
would a person, if they had a choice pick windows media player over WinAmp if they had to do research and make a choice?
would they pick (or Buy) Outlook (Express) or would they choose (Free) Agent?
Would they buy windows compression over winzip?
Would they choose IE over Netscape?
How about Defrag over Norton Utilities? (even thought they use the same engine)
let the market decide... if they dont then let those greater than them (in power anyway) punish them...
Re:Im all for this... (Score:2)
WinAmp is the most popular mp3 client for Windows. Obviously their attempt at a monopoly failed there.
"Would they buy windows compression over winzip?"
Again, WinZip is more popular.
"Would they choose IE over Netscape?"
I use to use Netscape a bit ago. Use to hate IE. However, Netscape's software around the 4.6 series turned into shit and I turned to IE. I was quite pleased with it and am running IE6 with no problems. Netscape had the market a while back, they just couldn't hold it.
The fact of the matter is that the fact that Microsoft bundles it's own software with it's OS challenges programmers to make a program that destroys programs that Microsoft includes. A truly good program will get downloads to replace the Microsoft one, even from Average users. WinAmp is a perfect example. And while Microsoft's buisness practices are unethical, rather then bitch about it, we should see more software that is superior to Microsoft products.
Re:Im all for this... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd pick IE over Netscape (or any other browser) ANY day of the week.
I'd pick MS Office over Star Office.
I'd pick Netscape over Outlook.
I'd pick WinZip over Windows CAB's.
I'd pick Visual C++ over Power++, Borland, GCC etc.
I'd pick WinAmp & QuickTime & Real over Windows Media Player.
I'd also - currently - pick Windows 2000 over Linux, for use both at home and at work.
It's not that easy. Microsoft has some good software. They have some bad software. They have some absolutely HORRIBLE software too..
Re:Im all for this... (Score:2)
Try to add a CD-ROM to your BMW 740 some time... Rather than use the same kind of interface the rest of the world uses, or even the 3x or 5x series, they came up with some funky plug that would cost me an extra $500 above and beyond the $500+ for one (two if you use the OEM version) BMW CD player option. Granted the CD player can make system calls to the dash and steering wheel, but finding info to hack a MP3 player audio output into the trunk has been rough.
Its not the bundling, its the bloody undocumented interfaces....
Re:Im all for this... (Score:2)
Its not the bundling, its the bloody undocumented interfaces....
That's the difference between what MS does and what car manufacturers do - and don't get bitched at. The interfaces are bloody well documented. You CAN write your own mail software, MP3 player, browser etc. on top of the OS - nothing is preventing you from doing that. The interfaces are there and documented well enough that others have used them to do so.
Compare this to what other OSes have been doing all along - Mac, Linux all come with bundled applications. Do you want to require Windows to not do what its competition does and thereby force it to be at a disadvantage to them?
Re:Im all for this... (Score:2)
I'm currently digging into some of the Active Directory stuff trying to use the LDAP protocals rather than ADSI. This week, I beg to differ on what is documented and what is not. (grin)
Anyhow, the point I was trying to make is I just can't plug in a standard widget, I have to use BMW's because of the undocumented interface for my app (audio input). Sure, I could buy a different car or use an approved CD player - but I really don't have many options. They expose what they want to expose, and god help you if you need to touch an area they feel you should use something else.
Not that I'm bitter about the CD player -- I just don't want to blow out the dash trying to get the audio tapped in. If I spend a grand on a car system, you better believe it will upload music to the car via wireless lan and turn the CD's into legacy components. Thats how I'll (try to) get it past my wife's budget review anyhow...
Why a fine? Solve the problem please! (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not tackle the problem itself? Microsoft is bundling its software to force competition out of the market. Why not force Microsoft to leave IE, Media Player, video editing software, hell even Minesweeper out of the default Windows package? (How much cheaper would it become?:)
There's the application barrier. Force it down! It should be possible to run Win32-applications in a legal way under any operating system. Yes, games too - DirectX should be opened or ported too.
Last but not least, Microsoft should cooperate with developers who struggle with Microsoft Word (or in general, OLE2) import/export filters and other proprietary Microsoft formats (NTFS, WMA, name it..)
If you think that I am radical, you probably don't have an idea of Microsofts power, budgets and market share. Microsoft is of course not evil itself. Their software looks and works actually pretty good, except for their obvious brain damage in security. Their management, their strategy and their habits of misusing their monopoly need a hard kick.
Re:Why a fine? Solve the problem please! (Score:2)
Why not just don't choose to purchase Windows yourself? Are you really forced to buy it?
You may be forced to USE it, but the same would be true if your office selected Linux, or Mac, or CP/M.
Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, because you don't *HAVE* to buy their product. This isn't like Standard Oil, where you needed to heat your house to live through the winter.
Re:Why a fine? Solve the problem please! (Score:2)
I don't write code. I get payed handsomely to administrate non-Microsoft OSes, actually.
The hundreds of folks getting paid to write our closed-source programs for those non-Microsoft OS need me.
Re:Why a fine? Solve the problem please! (Score:2)
So what? The mob's opinion is always right?
The majority of people in the world don't live as long as Americans, it doesn't mean I'm gonna give up medicine.
At one time, most people in the world (and it's possible this could still be the case) thought the Earth was flat; they weren't right.
99% of the population of the world hasn't thought three seconds about whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly. They only know what the press tells them, so it became a monopoly in their eyes the minute the press said so.
Meanwhile, the majority of the computer code in the world continues to be written for non-Microsoft operating systems, and I continue to get real work done on a daily basis without Windows, and Microsoft's pricing practices don't bother me one whit. I hope they double the damn price, it'll drive more business to me.
Re:Why a fine? Solve the problem please! (Score:3, Insightful)
That was the entire point.
I already am happily using Linux and BSD.
Which underscores my point that they're not a monopoly. Standard Oil was a monopoly; you couldn't buy your oil from anybody else, you didn't have a choice.
You can buy your PC OS from several different places. Microsoft is doing mean, nasty, awful things to get their market share, but preventing people from having a choice in toto is not among them.
Yes, some of the things they've done in the past (and may or may not be doing still, I have an opinion but I'm not gonna bet my ass on it in court) were illegal. The question is, should they have been illegal?
Should a court be able to decide, for instance, that Microsoft can't ship Internet Explorer in Windows? If they do, should it be legal for RedHat to include Mozilla and Lynx?
Do we want a court deciding that? Or does it make more sense in a free society that individuals make those decisions, and that companies be free to enter into contracts.
I'm not talking about click-through UCITA crap here, I'm talking about two marketting and legal teams sitting down and deciding on a contract. The fact that it's hard to compete for specific markets if you don't sign that contract doesn't make someone a monopoly, it makes them successful.
And, it's not illegal to be a monopoly in the US; it's only illegal to be a monopoly *AND* use that power to prevent other options from existing. Since RedHat has revenues in the millions, and Sun has revenues in the billions, it's clear that Microsoft doesn't even have a monopoly, just a very, very successful business built on a foundation of weak software, strong marketting, and duplicity. That's not illegal, nor should it be.
You can't legislate against offering people bad choices just because some people are stupid enough to take them.
The ONLY action the government should take against Microsoft's supposed monopoly is to stop buying their products. If the US government was constrained to use free software wherever possible, it would not only force changes at Microsoft, but it would spur free software development *AND* save the taxpayers money, both in the form of less taxes spent on computer software, *AND* lower costs of goods and services as businesses would see better free software choices themselves.
Documents would eventually have to be interchanged in an open format, so that businesses using Windows could transfer them to and from government entities, and that would force Microsoft to either document what they've got, or use something documented. If Microsoft could write a word processor around those formats that people still wanted to pay for, more power to 'em.
Re:Why a fine? Solve the problem please! (Score:2)
Worse, from an ethical point of view, than being "evil," they're amoral. Their business decisions arise from the unified goal of maximizing their return on their stockholders' investment. Period. I argue that this motivation, especially in the context of responsibility distributed and diluted over such a large organization as Microsoft, tends to blind the company to the moral and ethical contexts of the issues at hand.
Their software looks and works actually pretty good, except for their obvious brain damage in security.
I think shortcomings in software are inevitable and forgivable, but it's their response (or sometimes the lack of it) that's often the problem. Coming from the tech-writing side of things, I'd say the infamous "Master Document" feature in Word is the most glaring example I can think of -- it's existed since Word 6 and has yet to be fixed satisfactorily. It's treacherous: When it works, it's wonderful to have a "master" document act as a container for constituent documents. But occasionally, inexplicably, unpredictably, unrecoverably and unforgiveably, a master document corrupts itself and all the documents contained within it, rendering a writer's work useless. Savvy technical writers know this "feature" and avoid it, but every once in a while an unwarned (I hate to say "ignorant") writer innocently loses an entire manual to this dragon.
Surely Microsoft could do better.
Re:Why a fine? Solve the problem please! (Score:2)
it's open spource, ported to more platforms than linux and is easy enough to write for that it makes it easy to create an app instead of fighting with microsoft's stupidly complex API.
No thanks, I dont want their horribly written software, and i really dont want it on my OS.
Re:Why a fine? Solve the problem please! (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmmm... i wonder what this really costs them... (Score:2)
Corrupt politics in the US (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not an American, and haven't spent much time there, so I'm only going by what I see and read on the web and newspapers. But it seems to me that a great number of Americans believe their politicians and law makers are highly influenced by the men with the money. In Europe, that kind of thing is seen as very corrupt and not worthy of a modern, democratic society. Frankly it is viewed as a bit backward and a sign of a democratic system that hasn't matured yet. Italy comes to mind as a country in Europe that has a similar reputation.
How is it that Americans are so convinced of the superiority of their country, say it is 'the land of the free', has a large number of intellectuals, etc, and yet don't seem to be worried about such a corrupt system?
This isn't a troll, and I'm not bashing America (both Europe and the US have their good and bad points), but I would like opinions about why Americans seem to have this blindspot.
And what would you have us do? (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft: Republican party! Thank you for scratching our back. We'll give you $500,000,000 for the next election!
You see the problem? Personally I think prohibiting any corporation from making any political contribution would be in order but I also know that hell will freeze over before that happens.
Re:And what would you have us do? (Score:2)
Re:Corrupt politics in the US (Score:2, Interesting)
There are effectively two governments here: the corporations and the true government.
The corporations own the people. If we fight them, we lose our jobs, and everybody gets hurt in the long run, because money isn't in it economy, and blah blah blah.
The government is de facto controlled by the corporations due to lobbying interests and the way political campaigns are financed in the USA. If we fight the government, we are criminals, and with the interlocking of law enforcement, credit reporting, and the continual effort to learn as much about us as they can, there is literally no recourse.
Lobbying was meant to bring the people to Congress to for oversight of our representatives, but it's become an auction of legislators. Corporations hire lobbying companies to push their agendas.
So we're stuck in a cycle. Fight the corps, lose your money. Fight the government, lose your money AND your freedom. The only thing that could fix it is a catastrophic deconstruction of the corporate system that controls us, but the government will always quell such things in the name of the economy and keeping their pockets full.
So you tell me - short of a second civil war, what COULD we do??
Re:Corrupt politics in the US (Score:2)
I'm an American who's lived a decade in Europe. You are both right and wrong on this point. Americans simply accept that to believe that we live in a utopian society with government officials motivated purely by the desire to serve the public is utter nonsense.
Money corrupts. It does so in Europe and it does so in the United States.
We don't accept it. We don't condone it. We just don't delude ourselves into believing that it doesn't apply to our country.
Re:Corrupt politics in the US (Score:3, Interesting)
For one, the people with the money are not all rich businessmen representing massive American and foreign megacorporations. A huge chunk of that money comes from citizen-based interest groups known as PAC's (political action committees). In 2000, the top donor was not a corporation, but a labor union, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, who gave twice as much as Microsoft did that year. It should be noted that labor unions made up 6 of the top 10 contributors (AT&T, Microsoft, Citibank, and Goldman Sachs the other 4). Other notable groups include issue-based coalitions such as the NRA (the pro-firearms lobby). Any radical funding reforms would be extrememly dangerous for PACs in the United States, not just corporations.
And as much as many Americans may bash special interest groups, many of these interests provide a strong collective voice in the political system for large factions within the United States populace. Many of the intellectuals you mention are active, but they decide to play the game and battle their opponents in the political arena.
I'm not saying reform isn't necessary; like any human endeavor, the American system isn't perfect. However, the system does work... you just need to know how to play it. It's a lot more complex and gray than many people percieve it to be.
Perhaps we should take lessons from the NRA... I'm sure collectively, tech workers can scrape together more money than a bunch of guntotin' blue collar workers.
Oh... FYI
http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/storysofar
Re:Corrupt politics in the US (Score:2)
While it's true that a Union doles out cash to political parties the members of that union usually don't hand out wads of cash (mainly because they have mouths to feed and bills to pay). A corporation on the other hand not only has a lot of money but also has some very rich shareholders. The corporation gives money, the shareholders give money and they also sink unlimited amount of funds into so called think tanks. That along with the soft money funds adds up to a mountain compared to a unions ant hill. Think about it like this.
When was the last time the US chamber of commerce backed a democrat? When was the last time the cato institute backed a democrat?. These organizations are thinly veiled fund raising arms of the republican party and you can give them an infinate amount of money and you don't even have to report it. The corruption in the system is vast and deep.
Re:Corrupt politics everywhere (Score:2)
Geez, you don't have much faith in politicians, do you? That's a bit sad. Do you really believe what you're saying? Go live in Sweden, Denmark, or even the UK. I think it will change your mind.
Re:Which european country should I migrate to? (Score:2)
I've moved around a bit and I'm quite happy in Spain. Good climate, great food, friendly people. The legal system is screwed up but the politics isn't as corrupt as I expected it to be and it's improving all the time.
EU IT had enough with Microsoft already (Score:4, Informative)
4.8 Billion.
Microsoft's profits from two years ago in its European, Middle East and Africa region:
5.1 Billion.
This was the only region in which MS profits declined over this period.
Microsoft's Quarterly Reports [microsoft.com]
Not unprecedented -- Europe spanked IBM once (Score:2)
[from: http://163.18.14.55/datapro/06090-1.htm]
"A System/390 plug-compatible system is a mainframe computer or other device (such as a storage or tape subsystem) supplied by a vendor that interfaces to IBM's systems or which can substitute for IBM's equipment and run the same programs and peripherals without modification. The original IBM PCM market was effectively created over 40 years ago with the 1956 Consent Decree--the landmark U.S. antitrust legislation that forced IBM to share its technology with other manufacturers. The terms of that decree were largely revoked in January 1996, however. PCM manufacturers are sometimes called "IBMulators" or software-compatible vendor (SCVs)."
I think that antitrust action is necessary to create an "Msft Compatible Application" MARKET (not "monopoly") which will encourage competition, innovation and ultimately benefit the consumer, similar to action taken with IBM to create the Plug Compatible Mainframe MARKET.
Cf. also connector conspiracy [tuxedo.org].
The DOJ spanked IBM once (Score:2)
Microsoft managed to wiggle out that spanking. I believe they're even more dangerous that IBM was when they were slapped with the consent decree.
Watch out for sin taxes (Score:4, Interesting)
Watch out! This could be like putting a "sin tax" on Microsoft.
Sin taxes are leveled on products and services that the government wants to discourage but is afraid to outlaw: gambling, liquor, tobacco...
At first the money that comes in is just "surplus", but very soon it gets its own constituancy -- the money is earmarked to support specific programs.
Next thing you know you can't afford to restrict the "sin" because it is supporting essential social programs.
You hear: "We can't outlaw the lottery (even tho it is essentially a tax on those who can least afford it ) because without the lottery would wouldn't have funds for X (in PA it's senior citizens, in NY it's schools)"
When the government collects 10% more from the sale of Microsoft products through a sin tax than they do from a Microsoft competitor they are no longer indifferent between a Microsoft product and a competitor, they favor Microsoft! This ends up having the exact opposite from the effect indended.
As other posters have submitted, it would be very important to watch where the collected funds would go, especially for this reason...
Details of the "obstruction" charge (Score:4, Informative)
it has the details [theregister.co.uk] of the obstruction charge. Apparently they were writing letters from various companies in support of themselves and submitting them as evidence. This is misconduct of the grossest nature - here is an excerpt of an email I wrote a friend (I don't want to retype my point)
Look at the very last part. I've talked to you about this before... Microsoft has now been confirmed to have created misleading commentary and opinions in the following areas: Letters to congress, state officials (recently, in support of dropping the antitrust case); Random individuals writing opinion letters to various local papers (came out in the first antitrust investigation in the win 3.1 days), creating fony "trade groups" to lobby and publish opinions, and now they have been caught submitting false opinions from other companies. It really is the boy who cried wolf, you can't believe pro Microsoft (even deserved) information in any context because they have a history of buying reports and opinions in almost every context. This is a good trick if you can handle it, but it appears that it is going to backfire on MS.
You know what? I like it. (Score:2, Interesting)
I just wanted to say that I actualy like the fact that all this software is included in Windows 2000, why? Because it's all "windows friendly" in the way that all is connected with everything else in OLE and DDE. I know these are usable for other software vendors but for some reason, it's just not as transparent as when it is Microsoft native stuff. All their software looks and acts the same (if it works well is another story...), I feel confort in the fact that I won't have any interface surprises with them as opposed to some other vendors who put stuff "just because it can be done".
Penalties by third party greater than by friends (Score:3, Insightful)
It's better to be punished by people who think you're a good guy than by people who are convinced you are bad. But they still persist in thinking that they can escape punishment through trickery.
What would happen if MSFT pulled out of EU (Score:2)
Realize that the EU trade rules apply to many other countries than Europe, including Mexico.
This would be a serious mistake by MSFT, although I'm sure the Open Source folks would love it.
Unbundle and document! (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's home this happens to Microsoft too, and they have to completely remove all mentions of Passport/Hotmail from Windows, as well as IE and Media Player.
Re:Article (Score:3, Informative)
babalfish translation of the German article
Microsoft threatens high punishment of the European Union trust guards
The European union could impose a high punishment in in August the officially initiated trust legal procedure against Microsoft and force the company to remove features from Windows. This comes out from a confidential document of the European Union commission, which is present the barrier Street journal. The US business paper reported that the commission in unusually sharp tone determines, Microsoft tried, the Ermittler in errs to lead and the procedure obstruct. From this reason a possible punishment will more highly fail, as if Microsoft would have cooperated. The European Union commission could impose a punishment, which amounts to 10 per cent of Microsofts year's turnover, that is 2.5 billion US Dollar.
The Ermittler of the European Union commission is the opinion that Microsoft abused its supremacy in illegal way at Windows and Office software, in order to become generally accepted in the fast growing market for Business and Internet software. Additionally Microsoft tried to displace audio and video often commodity of other manufacturers with the Windows Media Player quotes barrier the Street journal of the European Union paper. Additionally the commission determines, which the Redmonder its operating system Windows 2000 and other applications with intention would have arranged in such a way that these do not co-operate with software of the competitors. In the document the Ermittler suggests requiring modifications at the products in order to prevent such offences in the future.
Additionally the commission accessed Microsofts " abusive and discriminating license policy " on, as well as the refusal of thecompany to put interfaces for competitors openly. The criticism is not directed openly against the new Windows XP, this can however change.
The collecting main of 34 letters, in which Microsofts customers support the company in the procedure allegedly, analyses the commission as attempt, the procedure to obstruct. Many of these letters were written by Microsoft, in other cases knew the companies concerned not that their expression than evidence should serve, place the European Union Kommisssion firmly ( kav / c't)
Re:Article (Score:3, Informative)
"The EU could fine Microsoft a large sum in the anti-trust case which officially started in August. They might force the company to remove features from Windows. A classified document of the Commission which the Wall Street Journal got it's hands on implies that. The US-American economy newspaper reports that the Commission was unusually harsh in noting that MS tried to mislead the investigators and obstrucing down the trial. Because of that, the possible fine will be higher than it would have been had MS cooperated. The Commission could issue a fine as large as 10% of Microsoft's annual income; that would be 2.5 billion USD.
The investigators of the EU-Commission are of the opinion that MS illegally used it's dominant position in regard to Windows- and Office-software, to gain the upper hand in the rapidly expanding market for business and Internet software.Furthermore, Microsoft tried to crowd out audio and video software of competing companies with its Windows Media Player, the Wall Street Journal quotes the EU document. The Commission notes that the Redmonders purposely designed their operating system Windows 2000 and other applications so they would not support the software of their competitors. In the document the investigators suggest changes in the products to hinder such offenses in the future.
"Furthermore, the Commission attacked Microsoft's 'abusive and discrimminating licensing politics' as well as the company's refusal to lay open interfaces to competitors. This criticism was not aimed at the new Windows XP, but that could change soon.
"The presentation of 34 letters, in which Microsoft's customers supposedly offer their support for the company in the trial is regarded as an attempt to hinder the trial. Many of these letters had been written by Microsoft itself, in other cases the concerned customers didn't know that their letters were intended as evidence [in Microsoft's trial], the Commission noted."
copyright Verlag Heinz Heise
Re:If I were Microsoft (Score:2)
To which the appropriate European response would be, "Okay, don't let the door hit you in the ass (or arse, since most Europeans speak British English) on the way out. See, there's this fellow named Linus
M$ needs the EU a hell of a lot more than the EU needs M$. M$, as far as I can tell, is running into the limits of growth in the US; this isn't a political/judicial problem as much as it is a simple economic one. Gates, Ballmer et al know this, and they also know that Europe, software-wise, is about where the US was five years ago -- which happens to be the period M$ was experiencing the greatest growth period in its history. They simply cannot walk away from the EU.
Personally, I hope the EU sends them back to Redmond with their tails between their legs. A mass European movement to open-source would have a more powerful effect on the worldwide software market than anything the current US Justic Dept. is likely to do, that's for damn sure
Re:If I were Microsoft (Score:2, Funny)
I fail to see the difference to the same guy sitting before the same laptop now screaming "Why hus it purrformed an ileegal operashun again? Damn, the backup file iz not reedable any more!! Wot, it does reboot widout asking now? Hellooo?!". Which goes to show, stupid users are no excuse for dirty tactics nor badly written software.
Of course, I have an overactive imagination and a twisted view of what Europeans look and act like.
Maybe.
Re:They need oversight (Score:2)
Re:Fines == Taxes? (Score:2)
EULA acceptance = no Microsoft liability (Score:4, Insightful)
This is patently ridiculous, IMHO. Imagine if GM bragged in their commercials about how safe their cars are because they have airbags, and then printed a EULA on their airbags that absolved them of any liability if the user died from using the airbag. Would people still buy GM cars? Probably not. Until software companies can be held totally accountable for the claims they make about the robustness and security of their products, the users of those products will always get the shaft, and have little recourse when they do.
~Philly
Re:EULA acceptance = no Microsoft liability (Score:2, Informative)