New Blow for Microsoft in EU Row 341
twitter writes "The BBC is reporting on a stinging rebuke to Microsoft and their last defensive move in the EU anti-trust trials. Boston district court judge Mark Wolf accused Microsoft of trying to 'circumvent and undermine' European Law by requesting Novell documents. The story reminds us that last month, a federal judge in California denied subpoenas of Oracle and Sun for the same reasons, that a New York judge is currently considering a request against IBM and that Microsoft will be appealing their March 2004 conviction next week and may face millions of dollars of fines a day. New complaints were made just two months ago."
Why not subpoena in Europe? (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if their subpoena gets denied in Europe, they can later use the denial as a grounds for appeal (again, in Europe).
Re:Why not subpoena in Europe? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why not subpoena in Europe? (Score:2, Troll)
Look MS doesn't care about anything other then their money. They will do anything and everything to win. They have no ethics, morals or any guiding principles other then "make more money". That's it, end of story.
Re:Why not subpoena in Europe? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why not subpoena in Europe? (Score:2)
"They have no ethics, morals or any guiding principles other then "make more money"."
The bolded parts were the ones I was countering when I named those companies. You seem to equate the bolded parts with making more money in your last post, even though it is possible to make money without having the qualities of the bolded parts. Still following me here? I never meant that the companies I named don't want to make money, I'm saying that they do have ethics, morals a
Re:Why not subpoena in Europe? (Score:2, Insightful)
if a company believes following certain ethical or moral guidelines is the best way to maximise profits, thats what they'll do, but they'll be doing it in order to maximise profits, not to be moral or ethical just for the sake of it.
Re:Why not subpoena in Europe? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One element in a moral code (Score:2)
This is why, aside from my games machine, Ubuntu runs on all my personal PCs. I could use offerings from Redhat or SuSE or any of the many others out there, but I like the Ubuntu product (a lot) and I like the stand taken by Canonical.
This is also partly why I use Firefox instead of Opera or IE or Safari. T
Fines for Microsoft? Hah! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah! (Score:2)
Not even microsoft is going to be able to bleed millions of dollers PER DAY.
For starters, their investors will not stand for it. YOu wanna ses a shareholder revolt? If MS keeps this shit up, expect to see one.
Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah! (Score:2)
If they lost a million dollars a year they could go for 600 years. Remember they have a FuckTon (TM) amount of money.
Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah! (Score:2)
If they lost a million dollars a year they could go for 600 years. Remember they have a FuckTon (TM) amount of money.
No, they could go one forever. A million/day is $3.6B/year - roughly 5-10% of their ready cash. This could put a serious cramp in their liquidity.
Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah! (Score:3, Funny)
You're using the "new math," aren't you?
Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah! (Score:3, Informative)
There might be hope after all.
Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah! (Score:2)
Glad to know I'm not the only one.
If only (Score:2)
It has to be important... (Score:2)
Especially with that pic of Bill.
Displace and distend (Score:5, Insightful)
It's refreshing to see that Microsoft's legal strategy of 'displace and distend' is finally running out of gas. Stretching out and distorting legal proceedings through any and all means is exactly how they ended up convicted of but unpunished for abusing a monopoly position in the US. Europe, thankfully, is no such pushover.
It's also refreshing to see that US states (CA and MA) acknowledge that, not only do their state laws not apply to the EU, but that they as states are obliged to protect the legitimate interests of companies located in their states against corporate behaviour that has already been found to be criminal on both sides of the Atlantic.
Microsoft broke the law and has been twice convicted for it. They have, however, paid no price for doing so and have not changed their business habits whatsoever. They are still embracing and extending, they are still moving into new markets to undercut and squeeze out rivals with the help of their OS, and they are still treating market regulators as contemptible wretches who can be outlasted, outspent, and buried under the collective output of an extremely high-priced legal team.
Re:Displace and distend (Score:2)
They are still embracing and extending, they are still moving into new markets to undercut and squeeze out rivals with the help of their OS, and they are still treating market regulators as contemptible wretches who can be outlasted, outspent, and buried under the collective output of an extremely high-priced legal team.
Re:Displace and distend (Score:4, Interesting)
*Please don't pretend the Clinton administration wasn't corporate friendly, it's just flat out wrong. The only difference was that Cliinton, being a Democratic Leadership Council owned democrat, at least put up an appearance of acting in the public interest, while the Bush administration has basically bent the united states over a table and made the whole country scream "Thank you Sir! May I have another?"
What the United States needs is the reincarnation of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a slavishly loyal Congress, a meteor to fall on the Supreme Court, and about 20 years.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer company (Score:2, Funny)
Microsoft is sort of like General Motors - they stick with their old program, and wonder why they keep getting bludgeoned on the head time after time.
Heard recently in the Microsoft boardroom:
Gates: "Why does this keep happening to us? I give away billions and Europe treats us so badly."
Ballmer: "I haven't thrown any chairs la
Re:Couldn't have happened to a nicer company (Score:2)
Re:Couldn't have happened to a nicer company (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe they're lucky the Japanese didn't decide to make an OS yet. It would probably be faster, smaller, more comfortable, cheaper and use less gas.
A Mindshare Monopoly - Not a Traditional Monopoly (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A Mindshare Monopoly - Not a Traditional Monopo (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft *have* PC desktop monopoly, period. It is nothing wrong with that. Problem is - they have used all their monopoly power and benefits what they have because of that to...crush competition in semilegal ways, but mostly, with problems of compability for them (t.i. competition).
It is illegal and really *should* be illegal. Personally I don't give a damn that Microsoft has bilions, that it has very big market cap. I simply don't use their products, because Linux *for me* works. OS X works
A mind is a terrible thing to steal (Score:2)
Let's hope Microsoft stays the course (Score:4, Funny)
MS can't win. And they know it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, RTFS works in house. Where you can, to some extent at least, hand over the source or at least the more important parts of it. Including "documentation" that goes along the lines of "and as the second argument, pass a structure to fill in so you know if the hack throws a fit worse than Balmer".
Can you hand out that kind of "documentation"? And is it "meaningful"?
Hardly. It would be, at best, an oath of disclosure of your inaptitude.
MS is indeed with its back to the wall. They simply CANNOT produce those docs. They most likely don't exist. Hell, the people who COULD write the docs most likely don't exist anymore there. Not even with "more time" they could give the essential information required. So they're playing the game of stalling, appealing, calling for aid to whoever is available and tries to grasp for straws.
Nonsense. (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many corporations that document properly their programms, including detailed API information.
I would expect thisto be the case in a software development company like MS.
RE: MS can't win. And they know it. (Score:4, Insightful)
I respectfully disagree with this comment.
I think Microsoft is fighting tooth-and-nail to withold the information necessary to interoperate seamlessly with Office (particularly Word and Excel) and Windows. Once that information is out, Samba, Open Office and a ragged horde of other smaller, free applications will slaughter those two cash cows and Microsoft will be mortally wounded.
"They simply CANNOT produce those docs. They most likely don't exist."
Enough of this documentation exists so that newer developers can create newer versions of Office which interoperate with older versions. That's all that's necessary.
Just my opinion, anyway
MjM
The real point (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm, Microsoft has a big pile of money. Everybody wants it. That would be the real point.
They Can't Afford to Lose (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft is fighting tooth-and-nail to withold the information necessary to interoperate seamlessly with Office (particularly Word and Excel) and Windows.
Once that information is out, Samba, Open Office and a ragged horde of other smaller, free applications will slaughter those two cash cows and Microsoft will be mortally wounded.
Just my opinion, anyway
MjM
DAMMIT. (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway. FTFA:
"Enforcing Microsoft's
Now that was a profoundly unexplained statement. Does anyone know why this is the case?
Re:DAMMIT. (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft approaches an American court and says, in essence: Please force company so-and-so (in this case Novell, in another case it was Sun and Oracle) to render a number of documents to us. Reason? Well, we are involved in a lawsuit in Europe, and these documents have been used there in some context or other, but it was ruled that we had no right to look at them.
The court then replies: So what? European courts have their own mechanisms. The only basis for your demand is that you don't like the outcome of those mechanisms and want an American court to interfere with the European proceedings. It would improper for us to grant you that wish.
Re:DAMMIT. (Score:3, Insightful)
and I am left wondering if there isnt a little resentment (maybe not the right word) on the part of the judges in the USA - Microsoft were convicted there and seemingly paid off the politicians to get out of being punished. Thats
Re:DAMMIT. (Score:3, Funny)
<Machine crashes in the middle of writing the opinion>
Judge: "Hang the bastards!"
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
You're right that the charge is weak in isolation because it couldn't establish Microsoft as a monopoly by itself. However, it is useful in combination with all the other charges that have been levied against them, because it provides yet another example of the abuse that Microsoft has already been proven to engage in.
In other words, this charge says "not only have they formerly abused their monopoly (which has already been proven), but they're still doing it, willfully disregarding the previous ruling!"
Re:I still don't get it (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
MS is smart and its plan is good. Many simple minds here at slashdot would see problems with making any of steps (a) to (c) illegal, while at the same time would cry murder when they can't view any content without licensing from MS. Every step is seemingly innocent, the end result is simply that MS has another monopoly: on playing and distributing audio and video no less.
The EU does see the plan and simply decided to stop MS at (a), while at the same time making it more difficult to implement (c) by mandating that MS opens up his protocols. It has never been about the player, always about the codecs: the player simply carries the payload.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
The EU can see this and wishes to stop it.
They can stop it because it is illegal to use monopoly powers in one area to extend that monopoly in other areas, ie media production and distribution.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:2)
Re:I still don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
No, the problem is that Microsoft has been allowed to offer Windows XP N for the same price as the standard version of Windows XP. That's why nobody's interested.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the same business model that Real Networks, and Apple use.
Also the OEMs and users have spoken, they don't want Windows XP N, user expect their computer to work out of
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, I am now a second-class citizen, because I can't use some government services (i.e. downloadable audiobooks from the public library) due to the fact that they only support Windows Media DRM. Given that my taxes paid for that content, I ought to have a legal right to use it!
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I still don't get it (Score:2)
Re:I still don't get it (Score:2)
That's the entire point. Better formats don't exist because Microsoft has destroyed the market for them.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:2)
You missed the obvious point there. Yes, there were years wh
Re:I still don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
Both of whose players entered the market before Microsoft started bundling WMP. Why should we assume that no new/better media player would come along even if it didn't have to go up against MWP bundling?
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm, wasn't it pointed out in the earlier trial that the poor port of Quicktime was because Apple ported it to the then published Microsoft media specs, whereas Microsoft's own media player used undocumented APIs? Wouldn't that qualify as the abuse you are looking for? Well, at least the courts thought so.
Where's the abuse from Microsoft? Have they made these players perform poorly on Windows? Have they made it difficult to install these apps? Does Windows Media Player hijack file formats without asking the user first? The answer to all of these is no. Microsoft's media player meet the needs of media distributors and this is why it's used widely on the internet, not because it's installed with Windows (you can actually uninstall it by the way, it's not linked to the OS in the same way IE is).
Has Microsoft made it difficult to install third party media players? Yes. You can't even fully uninstall Microsoft's media player, only make it so it's not the default, but the guts are still there. Does it hijack file formats without asking? Only after doing an update.
As for Microsof't media player meeting the needs of media distributors, thankyou, you just proved the monopoly case. The only reason it became popular is because prior to that there were several options. It was only after Microsoft bundled media player with their OS that it became widespread (prior to that, you could download it seperately). The only "need" it met was that media distributors new it was now installed on every windows pc and didn't have to worry about any other format. The fact that Microsoft controlled the OS is what allowed this to occur at the expense of other media formats and vendors. If Microsoft had bundled Quicktime with Windows, then it would have been the default. The difference being, that they didn't license Quicktime (or Real), the came out with their own product and by using their monopoly power took over the media market.
That is why, with the exception of DRM, there hasn't been any real innovation with Windows Media Player. There is no competition, so there is no reason innovate. And for the record, you cannot fully unninstall Windows Media Player. The core DLLs and hooks are still there.
Face it, there are better players than media player. There are better encoders and formats than media player. There are better interfaces than media player. The only thing that makes it the standard on windows is not that it meets media distributors or users needs, but that it is bundled with Windows.
Remember, long before the EU got involved, the US courts declared Microsoft an illegal monopoly. The remedies to the findings were challenged and later changed, but not the original ruling. The fact that the EU has come to the same conclusion shouldn't be a suprise. It's not "slashbots" or the courts who are destroying Microsoft. It's Microsoft collapsing under it's own weight.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Section headings from the downloadable PDF include:
# Microsoft has Designed its Multimedia Product to Exclude Competitors and Extend its Monopoly Power
# Microsoft has Used its Monopoly Power and Anticompetitive Tactics to Try to Defeat Quicktime
# Microsoft Repeatedly Pressured Apple to Give Up Quicktime and Cede the Multimedia Playback Market to Microsoft
# to Thwart Quicktime, Microsoft Employed Punitive and Exclusionary Actions
# The Technical Problems and Misleading Error Messages Introduced by Microsoft Impair Quicktime's Performance and Impede Apple's Ability to Compete
# Original Equipment Manufacturers and Independent Software Vendors Fear Reprisal from Microsoft if their Business Conduct does not Conform to Microsoft's Wishes
There are far too many examples of monopoly-abusing business practices to quote them all, but here are a few from the main PDF [usdoj.gov]:
From paragraph 77: "As recounted in the sworn deposition of Phil Schiller and Tim Schaaf, Microsoft repeatedly pressured Apple to abandon its business of providing software that enables users to view multimedia content on their computers. In return, Microsoft offered Apple the much smaller portion of the market for software tools used to create multimedia content. Microsoft made it clear that if Apple refused to relinquish the playback market, Microsoft would use its monopoly power to drive Apple out of the entire multimedia market." See subsequent paragraphs for how they went about this.
From paragraph 97: "... Microsoft took several steps to sabotage QuickTime. These included creating misleading error messages and introducing technical bypasses that deprived QuickTime of the opportunity to process certain types of multimedia files. In some instances users were left with the false impression that QuickTime was not functioning properly"
From paragraph 104: "Microsoft has used undocumented changes to the Windows registry to impair the ability of QuickTime to play numerous multimedia file types. In some cases, Internet Explorer 4.0 bypasses QuickTime and uses Microsoft software to play a multimedia file from a Web server. For many formats the Microsoft software is not able to process the file at all. In other cases, the Microsoft multimedia software will play the file with a severly degraded quality."
From paragraphs 108,109: "Microsoft has caused misleading error messages to appear for consumers who used QuickTime for various file formats. For example, ... Under certain conditions, an error dialog message would pop up when the user tried to gain access to types of media files, such as a QuickTime movie file, which were not associated with [Microsoft's] ActiveMovie. The Windows operating system would then ask the usser if he wished to reconfigure his system, suggesting that there was a problem that the consumer should fix although no actual error had occurred. If the user selected 'yes', Windows would reconfigure the system to select Microsoft's ActiveMovie instead of QuickTime -- even though QuickTime was capable of running the movie file. From the point forward, Internet Explorer would launch the ActiveMovie player whenever the consumer clicked on a file containing a QuickTime movie. This would cause problems for certain multimedi files because the ActiveMovie plater could only process a subset of the file formats that QuickTime could process. If a file could not be processed by ActiveMovie, an error message would appear telling the user that the player is not available -- even though QuickTime was capable of operating with the file. This could mislead consumers into believing that QuickTime was not operating properly.
From paragraphs 125,126: "At the conclusion of the meeting [between Apple and Compaq, to discuss Compaq bundling Apple's
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I still don't get it (Score:2)
Re:I still don't get it (Score:2)
Re:I still don't get it (Score:2)
Re:I still don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I still don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Go EU! If they can nail these bastards on any charges, good for them.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
http://tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=business&s=risen0
And I don't think the Europeans are specifically hating on MS. I imagine that if Apple had 9x% of the market, the regulators would get on Apple's case over all the bundled apps in OSX.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:2)
Re:I still don't get it (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I still don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, much of our regulatory philosophy is to support existing companies and keep out new competitors by introducing barriers to entry; this neither protects consumers nor ensures competitive markets. Regulation keeps sugar prices high; limits the numb
Re:I still don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
When was the last time you were able to buy Windows Media Player in a store? How about online?
Aside from that, have you tried to remove it from the system lately? You can't. You can route around it and divert away buit it's as bundled into the kernel as Internet Exploder is.
Re:I still don't get it (Score:2)
Hell, yes! Mine even comes with three different ones.
Oh... wait. Did I just destroy your argument there?
Re:The EU justice system (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The EU justice system (Score:4, Insightful)
For the same reasons we should be giving a damn about Microsoft in the first place. They're still a shady monopoly who got away with murder in the U.S. If MS can bully around the EU legal system, they have carte blanche to pretty much do whatever they damn well please.
Re:The EU justice system (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait, so now a fair justice system is a tradeoff and not an expectation we place on any governmental organization?
For that matter, why should we Americans give a damn about any injustice happening elsewhere in the world? Why don't we just seal up our borders and pretend the rest of the world doesn
Re:The EU justice system (Score:5, Insightful)
The rest of the world would be delighted if the US did exactly that.
Re:The EU justice system (Score:2)
Re:The EU justice system (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The EU justice system (Score:2)
Re:The EU justice system (Score:4, Insightful)
Because your SUVs would run out of gas.
Re:The EU justice system (Score:3, Insightful)
Because you'd be back in the stone age within a decade. The US is the largest importing nation on the globe. 90% of what you can buy at your local Walmart was not made in the US. Not to mention, of course, that you'd all be crying and whining three days after your oil reserves run out.
Re:The EU justice system (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but in Microsoft's case you can make the assumption of guilty and be right.
Re:The EU justice system (Score:5, Interesting)
The real issue here is that American's view other constructs of justice and social laws as being backwards and wrong. Who is to say that guilty until proven innocent is anymore right or wrong than innocent until proven innocent. I don't agree with the European method, but I am an American.
It is extremely myopic to argue that Microsoft, albeit an American company should be allowed to operate in Europe and at the same time only have to use American laws. If Microsoft is Europe and selling in Europe then Microsoft should be subject to the laws of that nation, regardless of whether or not Americans consider those laws to be just. It is not up to Microsoft to change those laws, and trying to use backhanded methods to compell what they want is not right.
If the constructs of justice are so maligent and repugnant, than why don't the Europeans change them? If Microsoft doesn't like the laws, then Microsoft can withdraw. No one is holding Microsoft in Europe; they are choosing to stay in Europe. And when their behavior is not to the liking of the European Union, it is not the place of an American to say that the EU is not treating them fairly, especially when most Americans, including myself, do not understand how Europe handles such issues. The world does not revolve around America, and American's need to respect the laws of another country, even when we percieve them to be unfair by our standards.
Now I realize that everyone is going to flame me about China, Iran and other countries that violate human rights. But this post is not referring to human rights. That is a whole different story. This is just about the social constructs of justice.
Re:The EU justice system (Score:5, Insightful)
But as far as I know, in a trial, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
When it comes to an appeal, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent.
It is the defendant's duty in an appeal to prove that the findings of fact and final judgement in the trial are wrong.
For Microsoft, the trial is already over. They have been found guilty. This is an appeal, they have to either subject themselves to remedies or prove their innocence.
Re:The EU justice system (Score:2)
In Europe, person is also considered innocent until proven quilty. I really fail to see where this notion that in Europe you are quilty until proven innocent comes from. Fox News?
Each system has it's drawbacks. To us in Eu
Re:The EU justice system (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The EU justice system (Score:4, Insightful)
If you were on trial, would you like to know what the charges were? Would you prefer the privilege of being presumed innocent? Would you like access to legal representation?
Americans no longer have the right to bitch about human rights or democracy (if they ever did); the sheer, galling hipocracy will merely encourage the rest of the world to hate them more.
Also, as other posters have mentioned, US law is utterly irrelevant outside of US juridiction. You can't pick and choose laws when it suits you, as has been done at Guantanamo.
Re:The EU justice system (Score:2)
Re:The EU justice system (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The EU justice system (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of these people were not in combat or anywhere near it. For example the UK citizens who were snatched in Pakistan or others rounded up by the Northern Alliance. They were suspects, not proven combatants, but they were tortured all the same.
were in bed with an Iraqi dictator while criticizing the "human rights" behavior
Are you purposely wallowing in hypocrisy or do you just not know that the US (+ UK + many others) supplied arms and backed Saddam during one of the most bloody wars of the 80's (Iran/Iraq war), and only turned against him at the end of it when his delusions of grandeur became an irritant? Millions died in that little sideshow of the Great Game. Seen the photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam on a trade mission? The very same Rumsfeld who architected this bungled attempt at an occupation. The same one who will lead you to invade Iran too, with disastrous results.
I suppose you hate the French as well as the UN - I'm surprised and dissapointed at all the narrow ignorance I read on predominantly American sites like this one. The UN is corrupt, and needs to be fixed, however the likes of John Bolton aren't going to do it, and this kind of posturing about UN corruption isn't going to help either - the current US administration is riddled with corruption, are you complaining as vociferously about that?
Most of them hate America out of jealousy and spite.
I'd be willing to bet you know no-one who hates America. You are in no position to judge their motives; in order to understand you'd have to be a little more frank with yourself and accept that an empire has its costs, amongst them the enmity of those you have subjugated.
Re:The EU justice system (Score:2)
If it was really about "jealousy and spite", then Canada would be hated more than the USA.
This isn't a trial (Score:3, Informative)
The trial is long over and MS lost. This is not a trial, but about whether MS is conforming to the judgement handed down or not.
Bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft isn't backed into a corner; they know full well who the competitors are that are cooperating with the EU's mediator to determine whether Microsoft is providing adequate
No news is good news (Score:4, Insightful)
It might be next month, or it might be years from now, but the EU will eventually cave and give in to Microsoft.
Re:No news is good news (Score:4, Insightful)
Will the EU give in to Mircrosoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think so! It is in the interest of the US to maintain the Microsoft monopoly just like it was and still is in their interest to maintain other monopolies or market dominances such as the one Boeing had over the commercial airliner market. It turned out to be in the interest of the European Union to crack the Boeing dominance, Airbus is wiping the floor with Boeing on a number of levels the
Re:The secret of Microsoft (Score:2)
Being pre-installed leads to inertia on the part of a customer, especially one who is not familiar with PCs. The PC vendor puts the work in to install Windows and ensure it works well on their hardware.
This obviously gives Windows an advantage over competing systems.
Re:The secret of Microsoft (Score:2)
Ok so let's sum up what's bad:
Re:The secret of Microsoft (Score:2)
* The OS comes preinstalled on the computer by the hardware vendor
* The OS itself bundles features such as a browser, media player and other essential applications which, due to lack of experience from the customers are strong "default" and remain in use just because they are available
* The applications for the OS in question can't run on another OS, so we have a vendor lock-in, meaning if th
Re:The secret of Microsoft (Score:4, Informative)
True, but irrelevant. Most people don't use Apple computers for specialised apple-only things. They use Apple computers for browsing, office use... etc. For this reason they are part of the general desktop computer market.
Apparently law undertstanding is pretty flexible if you're willing to put it to a critical analysis.
No, actually; the law is pretty clear.
You can claim Windows has a dominant position on PC's, PC's is just a special case of a programmable electronic device, just like Apple Macintosh is a special case of a personal computer machine.
Windows isn't dominant on electronic devices that accept an OS as a whole, so from that point of view they are suddenly not a monopoly, just like you claim Apple isn't a monopoly since you look at the whole PC market and not just the Macintosh computers market.
No. You don't use general electronic devices for things like office software. There is a recognised desktop computer market that does not include mobile phones or calculators or televisions.
Also you become a monopoly if you have a dominant position you say, what % is that share that makes it a dominant position? If Apple turns out successful in time, could you be really nice, please, and let them know at which % they should turn the policy up side down and immediately dismantle their OS in pieces.
The % at which they would need to be controlled (or at least monitored) is the % at which they can use their market share to gain unfair leverage in other markets. That is what the law says.
Do you know what this reminds me of. The Analog Hole proposal. The same those Slashdot users that flame MS on being monopolistic and how this is so different from the position Linux and Apple is, were pointing out how ridiculous it is to have DRM on "consumer" devices" but no DRM on "professional" devices (so they can do their work).
I am not flaming MS for being a monopoly. I am also not personally troubled by DRM.
What concerns me is abuse of monopoly, or gaining that monopoly by unfair means.
There is nothing at all wrong with a monopoly fairly gained and maintained through open competition.
Re:The secret of Microsoft (Score:2)
What's a clear, objective, unambiguous metric by which a corporation can judge whether or not it is a monopoly ? Some value that's possible to know about *before* exceeding it.
There is nothing at all wrong with a monopoly fairly gained and maintained through open competition.
For all practical purposes, it is impossible to hold a monopoly position and not "abuse" it.
Re:The secret of Microsoft (Score:2)
Well, being above a certain percentage of the market helps. Being 85 and 90% of all desktop computers is a pretty obvious metric.
For all practical purposes, it is impossible to hold a monopoly position and not "abuse" it.
Of course it is. The EU is indicating how this can be avoided - by not bundling certain products and by allowing
Re:The secret of Microsoft (Score:3, Funny)
auf Windows läuft, weil es sich kein Dritthersteller
leisten kann Microsoft dank seines ergaunerten Monopols
nicht zu unterstütze, du Schlaumeier. Du bist wie
ein Junky der sich bei seinem Dealer dafür bedankt
ihn an die NAdel gebracht zu haben.
PS: Auf meinem Slackware Linux läuft auch ALLES
was ich brauche. Von meinen preferierten
Multimedia-Anwendungen bis hin zu Maya 7.
Decaying European economy (Score:2)
Re:So in the Shiny Tomorrow... (Score:3, Insightful)
Europe isn't acting like a prostitute, it's acting like the consumer protector that the US has never, ever been, much to its shame.
Re:Microsoft Shrugs (Score:5, Interesting)
Most obvious reason: the EU is the world's biggest market. The MS shareholders would go berserk on the spot.
More subtle reason: if MS left, in an attempt to blackmail the EU... 'right, you don't like us, try doing without Vista!' one of two things would happen:
1) it turns out that the EU can do just fine without Vista. So why should anyone else cough up for the 'upgrade'? MS loses money.
2) it turns out that the EU economy is crippled without MS products. Very well: issue an edict, all Microsoft copyrights within the EU are revoked. End of problem. Microsoft screams in agony as every geek across a very heavily wired continent puts Vista up on FTP. Legally.
Re:Microsoft Shrugs (Score:3, Insightful)
You've got this backwards. All the Microsoft products being withdrawn from Europe is the EU's nuclear option against Microsoft, *not* the other way around.
Microsoft would probably survive such a move, albeit in some reduced form. Gates and Ballmer certainly wouldn't, the shareholders would have their heads on a pole.