Slashdot Mirror

Re: You mailbox example, you are missing an important step in most cases when it comes to EULA and software, the actual sale that has allready existed and given you wonership to a copy of the software. It would be more like if you order stuff and then when you recieve it, you have to sign.

Also note that the EULA would typically be a completely different entity than the one you bought from to start with.

>Once you've fulfilled that requirement -
>clicking yes or opening it - you should incur
>the benefits (using the software) and
>responsibilities (the restrictions in the
>contract).

Sorry, a benefit must be something that you would otherwise not be entiteled or allowed to do. "Using the software" is not something that is otherwise forbidden. It would be like sending someone a contract that if agreed to, allowed them to breeth as a "benefit" (and if they didn't agree, would it then be not allowed?). One can decline the offer and still use the software since nothing forbids it.

>Most contracts are signed without any
>negotiation other than the 2nd party consenting
>to a prepared contract from the 1st party.

Sure, no problem, HOWEVER, most countries do have laws regulating contracts in consumer related situations (I really can't tell about US specific though since I am not familiar with those specific laws). Typically they dissallow all sort of terms in such a contract. In EU for example, the EU directive on unfair terms for example sets a minimum standard. Here is a link:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/safe_ shop/unf_cont_terms/index_en.htm
(for actual text, click link in second paragraph)

Many countries have gone much forther. Note that the restrictions typically get much more sever if a contract is of the non negotiating, mass contract type.

>You people who are so against Blizzard here need
>to ask yourselves what the situation would be if
>users were free to disregard the EULA.

Don't know, but about any other bussniess seems to get along just fine.

>It would mean that either (a) the software
>content producers would have to accept anything
>you did with it or (b) there would have to be
>LEGISLATIVE limitations on your use that applied
>to all software content.

And we have a winner, (b) is what applies, and it is called copyright. It forbids certain uses, one of which is copying for example. No need to have any EULA to forbid such things.

Note that a typical EULA will actually try to forbid things that have nothing at all to do with copyright.

The illegal argument really doesn't fly.

It very much flies.

If you think it does, please tell me how it could be prosecuted.

By an impaired user, or by a state body tasked with enforcing such a law.

So long as the actual server(s) and the company itself isn't/aren't in that jurisdiction, there is nothing that can be done from a legal standpoint except to write a polite letter explaining the issue and show them a better way.

Alternatively, if the disabled user and the company are in the same jurisdication, then they may be able to /sue/. Eg, see the UK legislation:

http://www.disability.gov.uk/dda/

Or the legislation in place in Ireland:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000_8.html

See the general EU site on disability discrimination:

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/di sability/index_en.html

And:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/social _protection/index_en.htm

It is simply illegal to discriminate against impaired people when providing access to your services, in many jurisdictions, full stop. The EU is also active in seeing that all EU jurisdictions bring such legislation into place.

So yes, Irish and British companies would *definitely* be in contravention of existing law and risk civil suits if they used image based Turing tests, and I suspect as would companies in many other EU countries.

The illegal argument really doesn't fly.

It very much flies.

If you think it does, please tell me how it could be prosecuted.

By an impaired user, or by a state body tasked with enforcing such a law.

So long as the actual server(s) and the company itself isn't/aren't in that jurisdiction, there is nothing that can be done from a legal standpoint except to write a polite letter explaining the issue and show them a better way.

Alternatively, if the disabled user and the company are in the same jurisdication, then they may be able to /sue/. Eg, see the UK legislation:

http://www.disability.gov.uk/dda/

Or the legislation in place in Ireland:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000_8.html

See the general EU site on disability discrimination:

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/di sability/index_en.html

And:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/social _protection/index_en.htm

It is simply illegal to discriminate against impaired people when providing access to your services, in many jurisdictions, full stop. The EU is also active in seeing that all EU jurisdictions bring such legislation into place.

So yes, Irish and British companies would *definitely* be in contravention of existing law and risk civil suits if they used image based Turing tests, and I suspect as would companies in many other EU countries.

There's a world outside of the USA, and not every country has a DMCA equivalent. Quite the opposite - there are many European countries, for example, where "fair use" actually still means something.

I guess you never heard of EUCD? Already enforced in most EU countries :(

Same thing here in Norway (non-EU) - I believe the requirement to open your network to outside providers is a part of some EU telecoms competition directive? Link

Read Brian Jones' (manager of MS Word development group) blog and the comments (esp. June/July archive IIRC). The OASIS standard looks like OOo because MS declined to take part in its development. Then they turned around and claimed that since OASIS doesn't do what they need, they to have to develop a competing XML file format in Office 12.

What makes you think the OASIS standard is even worth supporting?

EU encouragement?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codecision_procedure
This is just step 1 of the diagram :).

You can follow the progress of the procedure here (it usually take mounths, sometime years :)):
http://europa.eu.int/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cf m?CL=en&DosId=193131

Here is a flow-chart of the EU decision-making procedure. http://europa.eu.int/comm/codecision/images/diagra m_en.gif

It's called Galileo and it will co-exist with the US system - if they ever get the funds together, that is.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/gal ileo/index_en.htm

Slow down there, cowboy!

Country code TLDs are incredibly useful, as almost all domain names fall into the natural country borders, or are international (for which we have the .int TLD - e.g. http://europa.eu.int).

The hierarchical approach also allows the management of entire TLDs to be delegated to the country in question. If the address space were flat, then things would be messy.

I also believe that the distinction between commercial and non-commercial domains is important. Requiring all commercial domains to be held under a commercial subdomain (e.g. company.co.us, company.co.fr) stops corporate types from pinching personal-use domains.

Doing away with this disctinction would be analogous to preventing some homeowners from calling their house "Tudor Lodge" because of the existence of a business "Tudor Lodge Insurance", or whatever - you see might point.

They were put there for a good reason. Let's not forget it.

Apparently, the rules are rather fuzzy at that. There are three levels of approval:

1. All countries approve. Obviously, after the French and Dutch no, this no longer can be reached.
2. At least 4/5 approve (part IV, 443). In such situation, "the matter shall be referred to the European Council". However, it doesn't say what the Council will then do. Can it override the 1/5 who disapproved? Must it ask the 1/5 again? Must amendments be made to accomodate the 1/5 who disagreed?

   Obviously, this second situation is still possible (we need at least 6 no).

3. Less than 4/5 approve: the constitution is definately a cadaver

==> So right now we are in the "at least four fifths" limbo. A Luxembourgish no would have had two consequences:

• it would have brought us one country closer to the 6 required to reject the constitution
• by their refusal, the Luxembourgers would have given courage to the other countries who still have their referendum before them: Denmark, Poland, etc.
• it would have sent a strong signal to the European Council that even countries which are known to be very pro-European do not agree with the constitution!

But indeed, the above is subject to great confusion, because:

• it's not clear what the European Council will do, when the matter will be referred to it...
• it's not clear whether the relevant article even refers to the situation at hand (it only speaks about revision to the constituion, not about the constitution itself...)
• it's not even clear which side benefits if the constitution is already dead. IMHO, if it was clear that the constitution was dead, this would benefit the yes camp. Indeed, people will reason that by voting yes, their country will appear in a better light (be more pro-European) without the risk of actually getting that unwanted treaty approved. Oddly enough, not many seem to grasp this. In his disastrous debate of Juli 6th trying to defend the no, Gaston Piep-Lagaffe tried hard to convince his spectators that the constitution was a cadaver. A tactical mistake, IMHO, (but not his biggest).

Instead of the well-spun press-release why has noone bothered to read the f report the commision released today?

http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/copyrigh t/docs/management/study-collectivemgmt_en.pdf

If you want details there are plenty available!!!

http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/copyrigh t/management/management_en.htm

In pratice for any major changes it seems to me, to be the council which has more power, as it determins the overall political direction of the EU. Also a lot of the horse trading between member states goes on here...

Which ever country holds the presedancy (currently the UK) sets the agenda........ just look at the slagging match going on between the UK and France... over the CAP.

That's funny, these guys seem to believe Ireland is part of the EU.

Let it be noted that the plural of euro is euros.

Let it also be noted that you are wrong. The plural is euro. It was decided that having different plurals for the different European languages would lead to too much confusion.

This Euro FAQ published by the EU clarifies things.

In Europe, under the EU Copyright directive, it's illegal to chip a console - actually, the offense is "circumventing copy protection systems"

You are completely free to paint your xbox or drill holes in it, but not to modify the circuitry in a way that bypasses the security/anti-piracy features

You're not making fun of our anthem now are you ?

May I direct you to Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society?

Although Sweden could have retained the previous exemptions for copying for private use under article 5 of the directive, thus we have only our own national politicians to blame for this change.

First of all, the press has consistently been presenting this as a copyright issue. What is at stake is a subset of copyright called recording rights.

In the E.U., copyrights last for 70 years after the death of the composer/songwriter. Recording rights last for 50 years after the first publication of the recording. A recording artist need not be the same person who wrote the song.

In 2004, the European Commission (EC) had its staff research whether the five E.U. directives on copyright and related rights contained inconsistencies, could be simplified or had other wrongs that could be righted.

The result was a report that had the following to say about recording rights:

"There has been a call from certain circles to extend the term of protection of related rights and align it to that of an author since performances are claimed to provide a similar element of creativity. There has also been a specific concern expressed when the performer is also the author of the music as this results in the same person's performance falling into the public domain before the work itself. Moreover, in view of the recent changes to the term of protection under the US Copyright Act, it has been argued by some stakeholders that it would be advisable to align the term of protection of phonogram producers in the Community with the new, extended protection of 95 years from the year of first publication for sound recordings in the USA. Otherwise, according to the proponents of change, European music producers and music industry might be at a disadvantage as compared to their US equivalents."

"Strong views have also been expressed in support of maintaining the status quo. It is feared that an extended term of protection would only tend to diminish the choice of music on the market by enforcing the flow of revenues from few bestselling recordings, while at the same time not providing any real new incentives for creation of new recordings or motivating new investment. It has also been pointed out that practically all developed countries, with the exception of the USA, apply the term of protection of 50 years. As to the need to achieve parity between the EU and the USA, it has been argued that the same term of protection would not result in equal economic benefits for the right holders in these two territories. On the contrary, due to a different approach to which uses of phonograms are remunerated, US right holders already benefit from a better protection of their recordings in Europe, and the extension of the term would only aggravate this divide."

"From the point of view of the Internal Market, the term of protection for phonogram producers does not cause particular concern since the term has been harmonised in the Community and also been incorporated by the 10 new Member States. Moreover, it seems that public opinion and political realities in the EU are such as not to support an extension in the term of protection. Some would even argue that the term should be reduced. At this stage, therefore, time does not appear to be ripe for a change, and developments in the market should be further monitored and studied. "

[Emphasis from the report]

As you can tell, although the EC looked at arguments for both sides, the conclusion was pretty, er... conclusive: no extension of recording rights.

The EC then invited "all interested parties" to comment. The result was a smallish tidal wave, mostly consisting of comments by stakeholders in the music industry who naturally wanted more pie at the cost of the public.

Notable is the submission of Cliff Richard, who began recording at the end of the 1950s, and whose income from levies is to diminish starting in a few years. The public has always kept its end of the deal, which has allowed Sir Cliff to make truckloads of money, but now the time has come to repay the public he wants to break the

a SETTLEMENT in a criminal case after being found guilty? Unimaginable.

Ok, I think I have a suitable smoking gun document.

First you'll need this definition:
ICT = Information (and) Communication Technologies.

Document. At first it sounds potentially innocent, but about half way through it becomes explicit that it is talking about a 2010 agenda for a Single European Information Space, a unified Trusted interoperable DRM Information Society. The source for it is the European Union's official portal for "institutions and bodies of the European Union, including the European Parliament, the Council of the Union, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank."

The following list is merely to cite the government bodies, not specific documents...
The United Nations Press Release establishing the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). WGIG still seems relatively small and relatively early in their work. Far bigger and more developed is the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). And of course there's the Whitehouse with the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, almost a Megabyte worth of PDFs I haven't even begun to dig through.

-

Ok, I think I have a suitable smoking gun document.

First you'll need this definition:
ICT = Information (and) Communication Technologies.

Document. At first it sounds potentially innocent, but about half way through it becomes explicit that it is talking about a 2010 agenda for a Single European Information Space, a unified Trusted interoperable DRM Information Society. The source for it is the European Union's official portal for "institutions and bodies of the European Union, including the European Parliament, the Council of the Union, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank."

The following list is merely to cite the government bodies, not specific documents...
The United Nations Press Release establishing the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). WGIG still seems relatively small and relatively early in their work. Far bigger and more developed is the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). And of course there's the Whitehouse with the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, almost a Megabyte worth of PDFs I haven't even begun to dig through.

-

Maby you should ask the person responsable:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/commission_barroso/kroes /

There is a contact button.:)

I know of court rulings in Denmark that have stated that it is not legal to send personal data to the US to avoid the restrictions of the local personal data protection law. The UK laws on personal data protection are almost the same as in Denmark.

If I was you and wanted to pursue this, I would - after having tried to settle this amicably with Napster.co.uk - complain to the UK Information Commissioner.

If readers in other european countries have similar problems, please check the list of national data protection offices.

It doesn't surprise me that software development is mediocre. A socialist culture/economy is bound to stagnate due to worker incentives and the loss of IT professionals. For example, in 2001, 33,000 H-1B beneficiaries, mostly scientists/IT guys, have left the continent in search of better opportunities due to their society structure.

Hope they are alteast trying ! http://news.com.com/EU+puts+funds+toward+global+re search+on+open+source/2100-7344_3-5721867.html http://software.silicon.com/applications/0,3902465 3,39130772,00.htm http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activitie s/opensource/index_en.htm http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/26/eu_grant_o ss/

The one thing that these others have in common, that MS Office lacks, is support for the OpenDocument DTD. OpenOffice.org v2 will use OpenDocument as its main format.

Note that many of the articles linked to by the original post express skepticism about how open MS' XML will actually be. Recall that in the last year, and even in the last weeks, MS has sought patents from the USPTO for XML and XML related functions. And is even now pushing to get legislation in Europe to make those same patents valid in the EU. That smacks more of a PR stunt rather than an actual opening up.

Furthermore, since the articles don't mention the current leaders in productivity tools with XML-based formats (i.e. OpenOffice.org or StarOffice), that looks all the more like warmed over press release being passed of onto the public as news. What's next? A press release about MS suddenly supporting PDF export like in OOo or StarOffice?

What kind of moron compares one country against a group of several countries?

Well, the EU does. (note: link is a PDF)

There's many more instances on the EU's statistical website. It seems they REALLY like grouping all their data together so they can be viewed as an industrial competitor to the US and Japan.

> Where is this '5% of its daily sales' fine figure coming from? Every previous article I've seen on this topic, including the one pointed to by this story, says a flat $5 million a day fine.

The ruling states "The Commission has the power to force changes in company behaviour and to impose financial penalties for antitrust violations of up to 10% of their annual turnover worldwide."

http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do? reference=IP/04/382&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN &guiLanguage=en

Especially seeing as how banning Microsoft on a continent-wide level would be an infringement of each country's right to self-determination.

Huh? WTF are you on about? You are aware that membership in the EU is voluntary, aren't you?

Its Member States have set up common institutions to which they delegate some of their sovereignty so that decisions on specific matters of joint interest can be made democratically at European level.

Obviously this is up for amendment at any time, but "Although the amount of fine should act as a sufficient deterrent to firms, it may not under any circumstances exceed 10% of their worldwide turnover."

The appropriate Guidelines

Obviously this is up for amendment at any time, but "Although the amount of fine should act as a sufficient deterrent to firms, it may not under any circumstances exceed 10% of their worldwide turnover."

The appropriate Guidelines

You might want to do a little reading before spouting off. EU law supercedes the law of member states when the 2 come into conflict. The recent developments in the IR35 debacle in the UK are a fine example.

This is why, as per the article you mention above, there is a lot of dissent among member states about what the constitution is, they are agreeing to that law for themselves.

Further, my understanding is that the policies with regard to monopolies and competition have already been agreed upon, hence, the 'European competition regulator' whose existence is made possible by The Treaty Establishing The European Community, article 81, at least I think it is 81. Either way, there is a list of what is already in play from that treaty with respect to fair competition here.

Take a glance at The EU online, and I would strongly suggest you do a modicum of research before spurting disinformation presented as fact.

People like you piss me off.

You might want to do a little reading before spouting off. EU law supercedes the law of member states when the 2 come into conflict. The recent developments in the IR35 debacle in the UK are a fine example.

This is why, as per the article you mention above, there is a lot of dissent among member states about what the constitution is, they are agreeing to that law for themselves.

Further, my understanding is that the policies with regard to monopolies and competition have already been agreed upon, hence, the 'European competition regulator' whose existence is made possible by The Treaty Establishing The European Community, article 81, at least I think it is 81. Either way, there is a list of what is already in play from that treaty with respect to fair competition here.

Take a glance at The EU online, and I would strongly suggest you do a modicum of research before spurting disinformation presented as fact.

People like you piss me off.

You might want to do a little reading before spouting off. EU law supercedes the law of member states when the 2 come into conflict. The recent developments in the IR35 debacle in the UK are a fine example.

This is why, as per the article you mention above, there is a lot of dissent among member states about what the constitution is, they are agreeing to that law for themselves.

Further, my understanding is that the policies with regard to monopolies and competition have already been agreed upon, hence, the 'European competition regulator' whose existence is made possible by The Treaty Establishing The European Community, article 81, at least I think it is 81. Either way, there is a list of what is already in play from that treaty with respect to fair competition here.

Take a glance at The EU online, and I would strongly suggest you do a modicum of research before spurting disinformation presented as fact.

People like you piss me off.

Article 12

"Mere conduit"

1. Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information transmitted, on condition that the provider:
(a) does not initiate the transmission;
(b) does not select the receiver of the transmission; and
(c) does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.
[..]

Unlike most other nations' legal systems, human dignity and therefore privacy is central to the German constitution

Luckily, the EU constitution will fix all that. The EU constitution does no longer try only to protect the rights of the people, instead, it "balances" between civil rights and the rights of companies. For example:

The Union contributes to the preservation and to the development of these common values while respecting the diversity of the cultures and traditions of the peoples of Europe as well as the national identities of the Member States and the organisation of their public authorities at national, regional and local levels; it seeks to promote balanced and sustainable development and ensures free movement of persons, services, goods and capital, and the freedom of establishment.

So the EU contributes to preserving common values, respects cultures... and ensures free movement of capital. You can clearly see the priorities.

Also, that means they are balancing between free movement and industry interests? Now how is that supposed to protect civil rights? A formulation like that could never, ever, give a person any means to fight against laws that they consider unconstitutional.

Never before had the industry access to lobby around the consitution...

2. Intellectual property shall be protected.

...but obviously, that's changed.
Throughout the whole constitution, most formulations are so poor that civil rights can seriously be damaged, because they are put into the same context with industry rights and "security". Another example:

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

Is this formulation trying to make it possible to restrict freedoms by establishing so-called anti-terrorism mechanisms? We all know that the big brother is trying to protect us, but I'd like better not having to live in that confidence.

There are many examples, especially where business interests are involved, browse the EU constitution online and you see what I mean.

You may ask why. This came about after a few cases of abused women trying to flee husbands and starting a new life in another part of the country, but being found and battered by their former husbands. When the media found out that the former husbands had gotten the new address of their former wifes from public offices, we had a sensible political reaction.

But then, I live in a european country. In Europe we have a very different attitude to, and better laws on the treatment of personal information compared to the US.

If you check out the calendar of the Researchers in Europe 2005 initiative, you'll see that there is a lot more happening than just the "European Researchers' Night" on September 23rd. In fact, from June through November, there are research- and science-related events all over Europe.

"Good point. And not only that, a lot of these "draconian" copyright laws were forced on the U.S. by the Europeans, via the Berne Convention..."

I don't know if you have noticed, but the US generally doesn't let anything be forced upon it, whether it is environmental agreements, or an international court. I think it is pretty safe to assume that the US relished adopting draconian copyright laws. And if you are an American, then it probably is your fault for choosing the wrong politicians in the first place.

On behalf of the rest of the world, and especially on behalf of my fellow Europeans: thanks, but no thanks.

Oh, by the way, next time you "adopt" our "draconian" copyright laws, try to adopt them literally. Because you extended recording rights way beyond the European term, we now have wankers like Cliff Richard (PDF) and U2 (PDF) clamouring to have your laws pushed onto us.

"Good point. And not only that, a lot of these "draconian" copyright laws were forced on the U.S. by the Europeans, via the Berne Convention..."

I don't know if you have noticed, but the US generally doesn't let anything be forced upon it, whether it is environmental agreements, or an international court. I think it is pretty safe to assume that the US relished adopting draconian copyright laws. And if you are an American, then it probably is your fault for choosing the wrong politicians in the first place.

On behalf of the rest of the world, and especially on behalf of my fellow Europeans: thanks, but no thanks.

Oh, by the way, next time you "adopt" our "draconian" copyright laws, try to adopt them literally. Because you extended recording rights way beyond the European term, we now have wankers like Cliff Richard (PDF) and U2 (PDF) clamouring to have your laws pushed onto us.

OpenDocument is being supported and encouraged within the EU. It will also be supported in OpenOffice 2.0, which is due out soon. The beta for OOo 2 is out already for testing.

That's not really true. You dont need a passport (and they've usually taken out most of all passport controls) between countries that have signed the Schengen convention. There are currently 16 of them and they include Iceland and Norway which are not part of the EU.

You do need to show a passport if you are travelling to the UK, Ireland as they havent signed onto the convention yet. More details here:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/fsj/freetra vel/frontiers/fsj_freetravel_schengen_en.htm

If I read the correct articles from EUROPA (portal site of the EU) and understood them correctly, then I don't think forbidding OEM's from installing other media players was the problem. According to those articles from EUROPA's "Antitrust cases" section, the problem was merely the "tying" of WMP to its "dominant" OS.

The articles I read were only press releases, but I'm hoping they would not have excluded an important fact like forbidding OEMs from installing rival media players. They only mentioned WMP's supposedly unfair advantage of being "tied" to MS's dominant OS. If there was testimony from OEMs about MS forbidding them from installing rival media players, then I'd appreciate a link from anybody who can provide one. I haven't really been following the EU case.

I think the March 2004 press release "Commission concludes on Microsoft investigation, imposes conduct remedies and a fine" gave the best summary:

In 2000, the Commission enlarged its investigation, on its own initiative, to study the effects of the tying of Microsoft's Windows Media Player with the company's Windows 2000 PC operating system.

This part of the investigation concluded that the ubiquity which was immediately afforded to WMP as a result of it being tied with the Windows PC OS artificially reduces the incentives of music, film and other media companies, as well software developers and content providers to develop their offerings to competing media players.

As a result, Microsoft's tying of its media player product has the effect of foreclosing the market to competitors, and hence ultimately reducing consumer choice, since competing products are set at a disadvantage which is not related to their price or quality.

Available data already show a clear trend in favour of WMP and Windows Media technology. Absent intervention from the Commission, the tying of WMP with Windows is likely to make the market "tip" definitively in Microsoft's favour. This would allow Microsoft to control related markets in the digital media sector, such as encoding technology, software for broadcasting of music over the Internet and digital rights management etc.

More generally, the Commission is concerned that Microsoft's tying of WMP is an example of a more general business model which, given Microsoft's virtual monopoly in PC operating systems, deters innovation and reduces consumer choice in any technologies which Microsoft could conceivably take interest in and tie with Windows in the future.

If I read the correct articles from EUROPA (portal site of the EU) and understood them correctly, then I don't think forbidding OEM's from installing other media players was the problem. According to those articles from EUROPA's "Antitrust cases" section, the problem was merely the "tying" of WMP to its "dominant" OS.

The articles I read were only press releases, but I'm hoping they would not have excluded an important fact like forbidding OEMs from installing rival media players. They only mentioned WMP's supposedly unfair advantage of being "tied" to MS's dominant OS. If there was testimony from OEMs about MS forbidding them from installing rival media players, then I'd appreciate a link from anybody who can provide one. I haven't really been following the EU case.

I think the March 2004 press release "Commission concludes on Microsoft investigation, imposes conduct remedies and a fine" gave the best summary:

In 2000, the Commission enlarged its investigation, on its own initiative, to study the effects of the tying of Microsoft's Windows Media Player with the company's Windows 2000 PC operating system.

This part of the investigation concluded that the ubiquity which was immediately afforded to WMP as a result of it being tied with the Windows PC OS artificially reduces the incentives of music, film and other media companies, as well software developers and content providers to develop their offerings to competing media players.

As a result, Microsoft's tying of its media player product has the effect of foreclosing the market to competitors, and hence ultimately reducing consumer choice, since competing products are set at a disadvantage which is not related to their price or quality.

Available data already show a clear trend in favour of WMP and Windows Media technology. Absent intervention from the Commission, the tying of WMP with Windows is likely to make the market "tip" definitively in Microsoft's favour. This would allow Microsoft to control related markets in the digital media sector, such as encoding technology, software for broadcasting of music over the Internet and digital rights management etc.

More generally, the Commission is concerned that Microsoft's tying of WMP is an example of a more general business model which, given Microsoft's virtual monopoly in PC operating systems, deters innovation and reduces consumer choice in any technologies which Microsoft could conceivably take interest in and tie with Windows in the future.

If I read the correct articles from EUROPA (portal site of the EU) and understood them correctly, then I don't think forbidding OEM's from installing other media players was the problem. According to those articles from EUROPA's "Antitrust cases" section, the problem was merely the "tying" of WMP to its "dominant" OS.

The articles I read were only press releases, but I'm hoping they would not have excluded an important fact like forbidding OEMs from installing rival media players. They only mentioned WMP's supposedly unfair advantage of being "tied" to MS's dominant OS. If there was testimony from OEMs about MS forbidding them from installing rival media players, then I'd appreciate a link from anybody who can provide one. I haven't really been following the EU case.

I think the March 2004 press release "Commission concludes on Microsoft investigation, imposes conduct remedies and a fine" gave the best summary:

In 2000, the Commission enlarged its investigation, on its own initiative, to study the effects of the tying of Microsoft's Windows Media Player with the company's Windows 2000 PC operating system.

This part of the investigation concluded that the ubiquity which was immediately afforded to WMP as a result of it being tied with the Windows PC OS artificially reduces the incentives of music, film and other media companies, as well software developers and content providers to develop their offerings to competing media players.

As a result, Microsoft's tying of its media player product has the effect of foreclosing the market to competitors, and hence ultimately reducing consumer choice, since competing products are set at a disadvantage which is not related to their price or quality.

Available data already show a clear trend in favour of WMP and Windows Media technology. Absent intervention from the Commission, the tying of WMP with Windows is likely to make the market "tip" definitively in Microsoft's favour. This would allow Microsoft to control related markets in the digital media sector, such as encoding technology, software for broadcasting of music over the Internet and digital rights management etc.

More generally, the Commission is concerned that Microsoft's tying of WMP is an example of a more general business model which, given Microsoft's virtual monopoly in PC operating systems, deters innovation and reduces consumer choice in any technologies which Microsoft could conceivably take interest in and tie with Windows in the future.

Don't forget Poland :)

Very funny but no, as a matter of fact he didn't forget Poland, because you see, Poland is in Europe. In case you didn't notice, Poland is one of the most important forces in Europe fighting against software patents in the European Union. Poland is not only a very important state in EU but is also in the very center of Europe. You might take a look at the map sometimes. Good luck.

Sorry, but the source here is a Blog post, which in turn refers to the convicted guy's home page.

Nowhere does it say what, exactly the guy was convicted of, or why. So how are we possibly supposed to be able to react to this?

I have a hard time accepting statements like:
This ruling can cripple the security research in France, making it illegal to publish security vulnerabilities or the proof thereof by reverse engineering. Without being able to tamper software the actually studying and consequent publication of vulnerabilities is made impossible.

Without seeing the judgement or at least a description of it from a neutral source.

Reverse engineering is legal in Europe, and is a protected right under European law. (91/250/EEC, article 6.)

I have a strong feeling the whole story is not being given here.

I am not that familiar with EU, but to me this sounds like something to complain about to the European Ombudsman.