Slashdot Mirror
EU To Take Legal Action Against Microsoft
beebware writes: "The BBC is running this story about the European Union opening an antitrust case against Microsoft. It seems legal action has already started (a warning has been issued) - place your bets now on the outcome...." You can also check out the ZDNN story. The warning comes from a complaint registered by Sun Microsystems.
Mcnealy is so lame. He cannot improve his own code. He says he can't compete unless he sees Microsofts code because it is sooooo good. So he is trying to get it for free. He already quit supplying Microsoft with any JAVA updates years ago, in spite of having been told by Judge Whyte that he must follow the terms of the contract. But he thinks he can manipulate the courts, Like he did with the DOJ against Microsft. Of course that ruling will not stand...
If Microsoft fails to satisfy the Commission that its concerns are unfounded, it could face a 10% fine on its revenues. However, in practice fines have never exceeded 1%.
First off, is this an actual statement from Microsoft, or are you just hypothesizing?
Second, if that's true it's wonderful! Everyone will get a short, sharp clue-by-four jabbed into their eye about how totally screwed up software licenses are. The UCITA regulations being passed around the nation will be dropped like a hot potato.
Worst case scenario, hundreds of EU LUGs will be holding a ticker-tape parade of Linux CDs...
Jay (=
All the representatives from these great states are saying is Microsoft is wrong to give equal campaign contributions to both Democrats and Republicans.
The Republicans deserve to be bought a lot more than the Democrats do, look at what services the GOP can provide! Heck, look at the free TV time MSFT is being given. Isn't that worth something?
Bill! Shuck off that "Anonymous Coward" handle and just come out and say what you want, OK? You just tell those Euro-Trash whiners to bend over, drop them Beltramis, and take it like men -- you know, like American Corporate Zipperheads have been doing for ten years.
Don't be shy, now!
They call me the Spark
The DOJ's antitrust division has been having a lot more success in prosecuting international cartels since 1994.
De Beers (who handed the DOJ much of its humiliation in 1994 by refusing to show up at trial), perhaps the most notorious cartel (diamonds) pulled out of the US in 1945 under antitrust scrutiny. A month ago, however, De Beers decided it would start getting out of the cartel business and would position itself as a value-added brand-name, owing somewhat to increasing scrutiny by the EU but also a desire to reenter the US market. It can't be said that such regulatory pressure can be considered "normal free-market forces", but it does suggest that often full-blown trials needn't be necessary. Of course I have due-process concerns about plea-bargains and settlements in general, but that's a different consideration.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
OK, while IAAL, I have no significant competition law practice either on the UK or the EU law (although I know enough to say that if M$ is guilty by EU standards, they're also guilty by UK standards if the acts complained of at an EU-wide level were committed in the UK as well), so this is going to be fairly sketchy.
What's being alleged here is an offence or offences against Articles 85 and 85 of the Treaty of Rome, which binds everyone in the EU - it's a bit like the way Federal law in the US binds everyone in the individual States (and please, no pedantry from US conflict-of-laws experts, OK? This is a rough guide, not a detailed exposition).
Articles 85 and 86 provide that it's unlawful, in a manner which pretty much amounts to making it a criminal offence, to trade in such a way as to be anticompetitive or to abuse a dominant position in a market. Whether on the facts M$ have actually done either of these things is not something I can tell from any of the articles cited, though I would personally bet a reasonable sum that their ordinary way of doing business as revealed on discovery in the US DoJ prosecution will get the Commission fairly well exercised.
This is not the same as US antitrust legislation, even though it looks very similar indeed. The basic deal is that the European Commission (sort of the EU's Civil Service, only not quite - I told you this was going to be a rough guide) investigates and prosecutes offenders almost exactly the way a police force/prosecution service would for a national crime. The only remedies available are an order to terminate the infringement or, where it was committed "intentionally or negligently" a fine on turnover while the offending conduct continues - the EU can't do anything to M$ beyond that, whereas the US Courts can pretty much order Bill to commit HariKiri if they find him guilty.
There is virtually no political element to this. The Commission is not elected, and apart from the Commissioners themselves (one for each directorate-general, which is the name for the departments of the Commission, and a couple of head honchos like the President), there are no political appointees in the Commission. They're all career civil servants, accountable as to their budget to the European Court of Auditors and as to their actions in prosecution of governments and large corporations, to the European Court of Justice (not the European Court of Human Rights, which is a completely different institution, in a different building in a different city with different personnel and a different jurisdiction: it is vitally important not to confuse the two, particularly when filing an appeal.)
The amount of tax money that is going to be spent on this is, compared with the EU's budget as a whole, peanuts. (The EU's budget as a whole is peanuts compared with the national budgets of everywhere except Luxembourg and San Merino, but that's by the by).
M$ won't be able to drag it out, either. Commission prosecutions are usually fairly swift and fairly brutal. The Appeal from the Commission is to the European Court of Justice, a body that grinds exceeding small but does grind rather slow. And an appeal does not usually stay execution.
As to the fine, it's up to 10 per cent of turnover. M$ might be able to mitigate by immediately ceasing and desisting and generally playing nice from now on, but that's more or less it. While one per cent is the usual, this does mean fines of the order of £200-250 million get levied on a fairly regular basis, and appeals don't usually succeed (the Commission has a limited budget, and only acts when it is fairly sure it will win).
Basically, though, that 10 per cent is the maximum penalty, reserved for the real baby-eating satanists of the European Single Market's competition landscape. M$ might be bad, but I doubt they'll be found to be that bad.
-- AndrewD
A Maze of Twisty Little Laws, All Different.
Well, from what I read in the article, the actions that the EU will take against Microsoft will be tiddlywinks compared to what the DOJ is doing. There is a major difference between slapping someone with a fine (albiet, that fine could be rather large, I would not want to lose 10% of my earnings -- however, even they said that the largest fines in actuality have been approximately %1) and breaking a company into little pieces.
Well in this case the paradigm shift won't be all that abrupt. Let us assume a worst case scenario in which Microsoft ceases to be tomorrow (and there was much rejoicing). This doesn't mean that suddently everyone is going to be forced to change their operating system or the platforms that they are on. Most of the systems that are in place will pretty much stay the same, and software will be created to help companies traverse over to other platforms when they are ready.
The only way a really abrupt change would happen would be if it became illegal to use a Microsoft product (ok this would be the worst case scenario, but even more unlikely than the above example), in which case everyone would have to change tomorrow and there would be mass hysteria. I can see some serious problems happening in this situation, but the chances of that are so remote that you really don't have to worry about it.
What is it that you need to know? I have no trouble finding development documentation. Ever heard of MSDN?
meh.
Urgh... Why is it that Bill Gates always looks like a complete dork on pictures. Is the editor a rabid anti-microsoft zlotnik or something? Is Bill Gates' head so big that it can't fit on one picture? Hmm...
:)
Eu poking their noses in? Presumably they should just leave American corporations alone because....uh, they`re american or something.
Yes, the EU should bug out becuase MS is an American corporation. Period.
If they go ahead with this outrage, the US should retaliate by banning the sale of their damn Airbus airplanes over here, since they are directly subsudized by their governments (since they are unable to compete on a level playing field).
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Microsoft has not been tried for attempting to dominate the server market yet. This is way overdue. While they haven't got round to integrating IIS and Expolrer yet (just wait for
- NT Workstation/NT Server/Netscape server IP row. Microsoft limited scalability in the NT Workstation IP stack after customers bought NT Workstation to use with Netscape's web server. By forcing customers to buy NT Server with "free" IIS, cost of NT/Netscape server combo rose sharply. And why would anyone need another webserver if they had IIS anyway?
The net belongs to everyone and it's good to see the EU stand up and say so.Samba Kerebos row. This one is in the past, but Jeremy Alison and the Samaba crew were very upset that Microsoft were denying them access to a formerly open protocol used by Windows 2000.
Netware. Whatever happened to them? I lost track after Microsoft intoduced one way directory migration tools with Windows 2000.
Java. Remember that?
Pricing and licencing irregularities (see here for example).
MS, according to its EULA has the absolute and unquestionable right to revoke the license at any time. If the EU claims to adhere to the Berne convention regarding IP law, then they must immediately cease and desist all use of Microsoft software or face the losing end of lawsuits themselves by their own laws. After all, they agreed to the MS license when they accepted it.
Java competes with Windows 98 for the PC Platform market.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
you're a liar. You've never lived in Europe, in my country, the amount of vacant jobs grows with a factor 4 faster than the employable population.
Taking car of the unemployed is socialistic, yes, nobody dies of starvation, and some are unemployed because their lazy ofcourse, but the rules are very strict, not as strict as in the US. You know, people in Camden are dying from starvation, drugs, crime etc. They won't be saved by any conservative with compassion program. I'm not saying 'US is bad', I'm saying, that it can be the other way round. But I guess you're just another troll.
Bizar technology?
Why? It's stable. There are applications for it. Development for it is not difficult (with the right tools)
meh.
To spare Microsoft because they contribute to the local economy is short sighted. But alas many voters are short sighted too.
Assuming the anti-trust case is just, then Microsoft is found to be guilty of damaging competitors and thus the industry in general.
Actions againt MSFT might cause massive layoffs, but no actions means many, many small layoffs from smaller companies that are destroyed by the predator. Just these are less visible.
Indeed. They (US corps) can bribe US politicians and judges, and corrupt that system. But luckily the world is larger than the US. They will find out that not every part of the world is so corrupt and loose.
If all the more suitable, appropriate potential complainers (like OEMS, distributors or what have you) are all too intimidated and cowed to complain, why not Sun? If Sun, too, was so frightened of Microsoft that they dared not open their mouth, would that make it OK?
Its not like Sun are competing in the market that MS Really dominates - The home PC OS market.
Solaris is still a totally viable alternative to NT in the server market. If MS get too pushy, a company can change over wuite easily.
The EU has had MS under investigation since before the DOJ went to court. They stated back at the start of the trial that they would wait to see how the DOJ case went before finding there own.
This is just the 2nd of a long string of anti trust actions. The downside of being an international company is that when you are accused of a crime you can be prosecuted in any or all of the countries in which you operate.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Punishing a monopolist: good idea. But as you point out in your Saab example, don't punish the consumers. Taxes (even if you call them fines) simply raise prices, and that punishes consumers. Raising prices is exactly what a monopolist is already doing. Forcing a monopolist to increase sales by 25% (by slashing prices or paying folks to take them if need be) is probably a better strategy.
Errr, a trade embargo? EU policy not to use MS software, punative fines for all MS in Europe offices, it goes on and on.
"Why should Microsoft even have to listen to foreign laws that dont apply to the US?"
If they want to come here and take our money then they have to play by our rules, simple as that. If they don't want to listen to those damn foreigners than stay at home.
Good Quality software products? Ex-squeese me? Which ones? Alright, admittedly some stuff is good IE5 springs to mind, but that's not what made them. Can you remember what it was? That's right a BASIC interpreter and an operating system MSDOS(originally called Q-DOS, quick and dirty operating system) which was at best a CP/M clone. And even out of those the only one written by MS was the BASIC interpreter, (now that's innovation).
Poor old Microsoft, my heart bleed's for them. Do yourself a favor, dig a bit deeper than Microsoft press releases when learning history and find out exactly how they got where they are. EEE.
> They'd pay the costs and not get the benefits. Do you really not understand why they wouldn't want that?
I understand, but I do not agree that maximizing economic benefit is sufficient reason to overlook wrongdoing.
You have pretty well illustrated that for the objecting politicians it's about money rather than about justice. Is that an appropriate basis for a [Rr]epublican government?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Rich
The latest problem is with a Solaris box with a lot of custom written daemons running on it. The machine is swapping away like mad, and new process can't be started. I've just looked at the code, and each daemon is statically linked against the same massive library, plus a few smaller ones as well. If they'd bothered to implement thisusing shared libraries, I could have got my work done this week.<p>
I'm sick of working in an industry where possesion of a nice suit is worth more than technical competance.
You obviously miss the point. Using Linux to browsing web when IE is so much advanced and then use MS to produce scripting applications when Linux is so much ahead in this area basicly says very clearly that you have no clue what good is any OS for.
You seem to miss the point even in other things, but it was said here so many times already.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
I have been a keen reader of Slashdot for many years
I for one, would not even consider using Linux at work
It is difficult enough to set up a printer with Windows and I know what I am doing
It would be a nightmare with RedHat
Don't you lot recognize a troll when you see one? - Good one vapour
-----------------------
Moderator's essentials
for those who dunno wot im talking about, read some tolekin, if you're a geek, you'd most likely like his works.
I'm not weird, you're just all boring.
Nice troll.
that's correct, and very perceptive. Michael Porter (Harvard strategy professor) points out that there are only two ways for a company to be profitable in the long run: to be the lowest cost producer (i.e. the biggest), or to be differentiated, the only one offering particular variants of products, i.e. essentially to be a mini-monopolist to allow for higher prices. Companies pursuing a differentiated strategy generally sell high quality items with strong brandnames.
does monopoly hurt itself
the answer to that is essentially "no", but it does depend on the industry. Because monopolies are de facto the biggest producers, they generally have lower costs than any small or competitors. And, because monopolists charge higher prices, they have plenty of cash. So, monopolists are very well positioned to respond to competitive threats by dropping prices to drive competitors out of business (remember when Microsoft sold its Office suite for $99 as a competitive upgrade?), or by buying companies or technologies as they need to. And that's not to mention the strongarm tactics they can use based on customer dependence, bundling, tying, etc.
Monopolists "hurt" themselves by sustaining high prices and profitability which becomes very attractive to potential new competitors. The high prices can make new technologies worth developing: could AMD have justified major investmnts in DRAM chips? Was pouring money into monopoly x86 chips a better idea? Another small way might be, everybody "hates" them and if economic circumstances change (they always do), coustomers collectively try to seek alternatives. But, this is a mild effect as lowered prices usually bring irritated customers back.
some economists worry less about monopolies because in the long run they often become irrelevant, so the harm they do may not be worth fighting too hard. Western Union and Wells Fargo, for example, IBM for a more recent one? Hard to separate though, whether without the anti-trust laws IBM might have continued to dominate the computer industry.
BTW, the benefit of being a monopolist and the harm they simultaneously do to customers and to "society" can be shown quite clearly on a graph of supply and demand. I don't have time at the moment to search, but there must be such a picture on the web, key word "dead weight loss"
I realy gotta run, but the 10% management number... management overhead could be 10% or more overall for a spinoff, but unless operations can be completely consolidated in a merger (i.e. the products of the two companies are identical) then that management overhead does not go away. The "delta" is not 10% is what I meant. Think of it this way: OSes and Office sofware are different lines of business, and right up to the top of the corporation they require management attention. Bill Gates can only put half his attention into OSes because of the time he spends with Office. However, in this case it is worth it because by tying the two products together he can sustain two monopolies with extra high profitability.
and to any moderator still reading, how can my original post at the top of this thread be called "redundant"? it was a very early post and raised important questions not covered by the article nor by anyone else here.
> Heheeh.
;)
Aha, gibbering idiot style kung-fu
> Why should I trust UN and their studies.
As a scientist I would say because they produce the most respected, comprehensive and *global* poverty research.
best wishes,
Mike.
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
I haven't a lot of information about it but from what they said at the radio yesterday MS was issued a warning for using their monopoly to gain an unfair advantage in the server area, so it seems that it would be a different case from the US given that the US case was about desktop computers, not server computers.
intersting times are coming ahead anyway.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
That doesn't stop them from going after China's market.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Nope, they mean _all_ revenue. I've read this in an article about a similar case against DaimlerChrysler.
You answered your own question: "99% of all major companies USE Microsoft products" and that's sufficient reason to run MS stories. That MS is in legal trouble because they try to dominate the market in every way they can is MS's fault, i'm quite interested in this story, since i'm an european, and thus would like to see some sensible legislation in the way of MS marketing strategies preventing customers to be ripped of more than necessary. A good example of this is win98SE which costs four times as much if you buy it from the shelf than as an OEM version.
.net initiative and their efforts in embedded applications (now it's handhelds, next will be phones, but it'll all be connected in the future, even your toaster).
Since at present the internet is one of the fastest extending markets i'd like to see MS prevented from dominating that market for the next twenty years, like it has dominated OSes and key applications for the last twenty. MS is definitley making a grab for it as can be seen from their bundling IE with Win strategy (they where late to get in the business, but simply used the leverage of their OS to kick out the marketleader netscape), their approach to the kerberos protocol (basically trying to change a widely used protocol into some MSproprietary one), their recent
Now i'd like a future where Microsoft has to make an effort that their applications correctly connect with everything else on the planet (basically by not screwing up when implementing a protocol) and not the other way around, like it's now with software: If some application doesn't work too well with Windows because some windows feature doesn't work as documented it's the applications (programmers) problem to get it fixed.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
There are other possibilities. For example I believe Germany has a law that invalidates some provisions of EULA's so that Germans are allowed to resell OEM software. This is not related to antitrust but something like that could be an effective antitrust measure. It would be harder to maintain an OS monopoly if all the people switching to other OS's could legally sell their OEM Windows.
can't believe how obsessively Slashdot and the over-zealous Linux bigots delight in legal issues and Microsoft.
If you look at the title for Slashdot you will see that it says "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." Considering that MS has control of >80% of the consumer market, when legal action, especially anti-competitive legal action, is used to threaten MSs hold the general nerd/geek population DOES care, it is the stuff that matters.
I personally do care about what the EU/DOJ is considering when it comes to legal action against MS because the implications are huge. Although I have some petty hopes about MS getting a huge slap in the face, there is more to it than that. If the EU imposes a huge tariff, or if it is broken up by the DOJ, then I want to know. There is a lot a stake here and if something big goes down.
It may have missed everyones attention here but 99% of all major companies USE Microsoft products.
True, but 99% of all "major" companies use UNIX too, including MS. Why, because it is a tried and true system that is known to be the best for larger systems, whether it be a server, database or whatever. Last I checked MS HotMail ran a BSD firewall and a Solaris box in the background. This is because NT CANNOT handle the load nor is it secure enough. There is a good reason why MS doesn't have a presence in the Mid-Large scale servers, and it isn't because people haven't tried using them, its because they cannot do what is needed. Even the mindspring results showed that MS cannot compete in the larger server market, x86 Solaris served three times as many pages as NT.
Although some companies are not planning a on deploying Linux right away, 90% of the undergraduate computer science majors that I know use Linux on their home machines. The UGrad computer lab for computer science majors at my college is 50% Linux and 50% Solaris 8. A good number of the physics, math, and engineering undergraduates that I know have switched, or are planning on switching, to Linux, and the trend is increasing at alarming rates. Most of these people will not switch back to Windows if they can avoid it because they just don't TRUST MS products.
Sure the average user does not have Linux skills, but when the majority of the technical intellectuals are beginning to being raised on *NIX you can expect a swing to occur soon. People have the ability to adapt, if Linux or Mac or whatever takes over, they will learn how to use it.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
I ... *sniff* ... smell ... *sniff* ... a ... *sniff* ... dirty ... *sniff* ... rotten ... *sniff* ... troll, troll, troll!!!
Hehehe, looks like the standard US - Canada thing all over again!
Thimo
--
Avoid the Gates of Hell. Use Linux!
Imposing tariffs, and demanding that governmental organisations use alternative software, will mean that other companies and OSses get a real and fair chance do develop, and become strong competition for MSFT.
That picture of Bilbo Gates at the top of the BBC article! Take it away! Take it away!
>the more your everyday person is going to start believing that their cosy little desktop system at home is not all it could be.
That's actually the key point. I speak as a European - and, strictly speaking I have no right to lecture anyone in the USA on their Law or tactics.
However seen from the outside by someone who has tried hard to see the big picture:
Microsoft software is developed in a way which encourages appearance over solid content. The problems I see with Microsoft software can be related to the way Microsoft as a company operates . Things like the way the company generates income, the way development is organised and what/who/how the development process is driven.
Microsoft's business practices follow on as a direct consequence of those same pressures and also as a consequence of the software they produce.
The problem is that most consumers(=voters) do not see much or any of this. They only see flashy looking software and an American company apparently making healthy profits. An American company equipped with a PR machine able and willing to paint any professional who dares criticise Microsoft's products as noting more than a pissed-off competitor.
Ultimately winning a battle at law (USA or EU) is not going to be enough. You need to persuade people/voters that there are problems with the Industry generally and especially Microsoft and these same, ordinary people are suffering as a consequence.
Part of the solution is going to involve explaining about good and bad software practices, How quality code can be built, the importance of well controlled and maintained open standards etc.
Once you have got the "movers and thinkers" in society to understand such issues - then it will become a lot easier to convince of them things like why it is wrong for a company to leverage its market to try and subvert an open standard API into a proprietry API.
AJB
If you cant beat them, Sue them. Lawsuits are a tool to help keep competitors off-balance anyway.
I wouldn't call Windows 2000 stable. At least not based on my experience with it. It crashed within 1 hour of being installed on my computer for the first time.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
It is all an act by Sun. StarOffice was free anyway before they acquired it. So, what are you saying?!
Time does not wait.
Oh yeh, you spelled "fucking" wrong, too.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
They are going to have more of this in the years to come. More of the customers will be coming after in the coming years. With everything from price gouging to bad products. Not fun a fun time for Microsoft
to see how this case turns out. In one corner you have powerful American megacorp of Microsoft, already under DOJ fire. And then you have the large international governing body that is the EU.
If this case goes through it will definitely be a nice precedent to see how American corporations comply to foreign laws and governing bodies. If MS loses, it would be good to see American companies forced to take responsiblity for their dishonest actions in regard to the international circuit. However, as much as I want MS to get a stern slap in the face for its actions, I hope whatever decision doesn't fuck up MS further than the DOJ suit did. True they're an 'evil, greedy corporation' but considering how entrenched they are in the PC market, it's still not safe to have a major software paradigm shift occur abruptly.
Emerson Willowick: Thinker, Writer, Human Being.
Yes, nothing a little toothblack, some pimples and some red-eye couldn't help with... ;-)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
But when dealing with a foreign company that simply imports products, what will the EC do? Impose tariffs? Fines? It is difficult for them to remedy or ameliorate the situation without harming their consumers.
you may have an tech certificate from Microsoft, but you don't know much about anti-trust: the charge against a monopolist is that they charge unfairly high prices to take advantage of the consumer's dependence. This sort of behavior eliminates the primary benefit of free markets: low prices. There is no point in having a free market if you allow monopolies. So, actions taken against monopolists are designed to get them to stop being monopolists and lower their prices.
The actions taken agains monopolists do not stop their products from being made available. You should keep these points in mind :)
And as to your gripe about unix lovers: why don't you Microsoft lovers start your own Slashdot and lick Bill Gates boots over there? People who love unix love it for very good and clear technical reasons. Microsoft products have almost none of the features that unix people love. Can't we just love unix in piece and not have to listen to the constant importunings of the provincial users of an arcane collection of proprietary APIs and lame programming languages? Now, before you accuse me of flaming or trolling, check the Computer Science laboratories at the top schools, MIT, Stanford, CMU, et al: there is very limited use of Microsoft development tools, and very broad use of unix. We know what we like, and we know what we dislike. Otherwise, let the market decide.
Europe realized that it's not enough to just put the lid on the coffin, they also need to nail on the back to the coffin.
Because MS runs it's business in Europe too. Or do you want to say that offices of European companies in US don't need to listen to US laws?
>kick the shit out of someone not playing nicely.
>If sun ain't good enough to compete then go file bankrupcy or sell out to another company is my solution for sun.
I think that's a terrible attitude. We have enough trouble with businesses covertly adopting unethical and socially or environmentally destructive methods for gaining the slightest competitive edge. We don't need people encouraging it by hailing competitiveness as the cure for everything and fairness as a crutch for the weak. This is a road to disaster, and we're already too far down it.
Sure, the whining might be annoying, but I'd still prefer twice as much of it if it makes it harder for the ethically-challenged to get away with the shit they pull.
From the EU pressrelease:
I think they can copy the conclusion that MS has a monopoly verbatim; how they misused it is different in this case..."...99% of all major companies USE Microsoft products."
True.
"They use then because we are safe in the knowledge that they have been strenuosly tested for deployment in large scale organisations."
Unproven. Without asking each company why they MS products, you have no way of knowing why they do so. For instance the only reason my company uses MS is because so many companies use MS. We have to be able to read Word files. Etc.
"I for one, would not even consider using Linux at work..."
Can't argue with that. However, I can add an additional opinion: I not only consider running Linux, I DO run Linux (at home and at work). Furthermore, now that I've spent 9 months running Linux at work, I refuse to go back to Windows. There is a possibility that I will be asked to go to Windows development full-time at my current job. If that happens, I will quit. Not because I love Linux, but because I hate Windows.
And don't think this is some irrational "I refuse to bow to The Man" thing. When I use Windows, I feel cramped and uncomfortable:
--No virtual screens? But alt-tab-tab-tab-tab takes a lot longer than ctrl-arrow
--No grep/diff/awk/sed/find? (yes, I know you can get these elsewhere--but why not just use Unix?)
--No real shell-scripting? How am I supposed to automate my nightly builds?
--A lot of rebooting?
--DLL Hell?
--ETC!
You can argue all you like, but the fact remains that people are MOVING to Linux. What people use NOW makes no difference--what people SWITCH TO is what's key.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
You didn't even get past the second sentence. Tut tut.
And again here:
There's also some rank stupidity:In conclusion, I find you guilty of a severe violation of the mutual exlusivity law with only rank stupidity as a mitigating circumstance.
You are hereby sentenced to 10 years Windows NT administration.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
If a company wants to do business in a country, it has to abide by that country's competition laws. Hence, for example, the EU even has the power to regulate mergers between two US companies like Mobil and Exxon if they do significant business in Europe.
Competitors bring charges of antitrust violation against MS, AOL, etc., because they have the money and influence to get the case heard. If you or I, or most any other citizen, were to attempt to bring a lawsuit against Microsoft for anticompetitive practices, we would be laughed out of the courtroom. You have to be able to pay for hot-shit corporate lawyers, find expert witnesses to testify, etc., which is beyond the capabilities of real people -- hence, enter Sun, Netscape, et. al.
As for the basic necessity of some sort of antitrust protection, I'm going to have to flat out disagree with you. Just like private citizens have a right to defend themselves against government actions in court, individuals and nations needs to have some sort of recourse against multinational corporations that have human and financial resources greater than many small countries. I agree with you that business law is often to vague and arbitrary -- but I think that it needs to be more tightly controlling, to prevent the self-serving, privacy-invading, aggressive tactics that every corporation uses whenever they can get away with it.
I fail to see how filing suit against MS has harmed the computer industry at all. They have had their chance to make a defense, and are appealing the decision; a public discourse has been opened on technology business ethics, and someone has done something to help counterbalance the billions Microsoft spends on marketing and PR every year.
I don't want to trade in the ugly evil beast that is Microsoft, for the even uglier more evil beast that is any foreign government telling US corporations how to run their business.
In ten years y'all will rue the day you rooted for the EU against Microsoft, when international laws dig even deeper into your nation's sovereignty.
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
meh.
Perfect. Sounds like Republicans do understand what it is about after all. Vote for Bush.
Rated +4 yet also offtopic, nice paradox...
But anyway, this is yet another example of why GB Jr. should NOT be allowed into the oval office. I'm no fan of Gore [moderately more intelligent than the trees he's so fond of] but at the very least he's not likely to undermine one of the most important trials in recent memory [recent being approx. 3-5 decades].
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
Heheeh. Why should I trust UN and their studies. So far, their record is rather abysmal, ne fuckup followed by another. One hell of an authority we have here.
That's because people who understand know that you shouldn't use a Windows box as a server that has to handle a high load. It's using the wrong tool for the job. It's like, like...
...like taking a dump in a urinal.
I mean, the urinal does front-end services really well, but really doesn't work well doing back-end services.
Try telling someone sometime that urinals are better for taking dumps in. They'll look at you like you're crazy. But that's what Microsoft did, right? And then they tried to convert it - you know, give it a bigger bowl. Whoops. Didn't work as well as they'd hoped.
Don't mind me, I'm smoking something.
Be nice to your friends. If it weren't for them, you'd be a complete stranger.
I'm not bashing you here, but pointing something out...
/. readers (*ix users) bash MS so much is because...
Simply because one as a) MCSE and b) a fairly good technical knowledge of the underlying concepts, this does not make them an authority on why MS is better. It *DOES* mean that they have a good solid understanding of how MS likes to do things.
Do I think you probably have a solid understanding of windows and VB, and of how MS likes to build a network? Absolutely. Probably much better than my own undersanding.
Do I think you understand a lot of the core concepts? Sure.
Do I think you have a more impartial outside view that contains a knowledge of unix, Windows, as well as other systems, and enough technical background to make a nice, impartial decision as to what is a better solution in the long run? I'm not so sure.
MS may occupy a *lot* of desktops, the vast majority, but this does not mean they define computing science, enterprise computing, technology, or anything else. It simply means people currently are using it.
They do not use it because it is 'safe and tested for huge installations'. They use it because everyoen else uses it. They use it because there is no viable alternative at the moment, due to MS monopolistic practices.
The reason many
- in learning unix, you generally do not learn vendor-specific realities. You learn hard technical facts about systems. In learning linux, for instance, you learn a great many hard facts about how computers work, how software works, how networks function. Nothing is abstracted off to some dialog box with an 'ok' button.
- in learning NT, for instance... you do not have this impartiality. You learn about how the OS works, not how the computer works. You are shielded from the underlying technology. Sure.. youlearn about newtworking and such in MCSE... but it's not the same thing!
MCSE teaches you how to build solutions using MS products.
Unix teaches you how to build large systems out of *anything*, even non-unix.
The Washington voters are actually perfectly rational here. Although consumers in general would be benefited by Microsoft being forced out of being a monopoly, there would be a cost. The cost of harming Microsoft (or even Microsoft losing its monopoly... monopoly rents are very useful...) is born largely on the people of Washington.
It is easy for us to criticize them. We'd get the benefits and not pay the costs. They'd pay the costs and not get the benefits. Do you really not understand why they wouldn't want that?
Alex
But serious, have you ever tried to buy a Ultra 5 or Ultra 10 workstation and get them to wave the Solaris software and pre-installation fee? We where trying to get a Ultra workstation for running the Ultra Penguin port of Linux. But it was impossible to get Sun Direct to unbundle the OS from the hardware (isn't this the same type of problem we where complaining previously about Dell, IBM, HP, etc?). Oh, and btw, for those that don't already know, the Solaris 8 installation application has an integrated web browser. I'm no fan of Redmond, but why is Sun so much "better" than everyone else? Why aren't they unbundling things the same way we expect MS too?
Yes, I have to agree. Let's keep Billy away from quality characters like Bilbo. And another agreement: That picture has tons of potential... I may have to break out Paint Shop and have a go at it myself *lol*
Microsoft are not being taken to court: they are being investigated by the Commission. Like most other regulatory bodies, they act on their own authority. It's like when the health inspector tells you to clean up your kitchen: you can appeal the decision to a court but that's your call.
Also, we are talking serious money if M$ get fined here. More than enough to pay a few lawyers; even discounting the indirect benefits: even schools and hospitals have to get their software from somewhere.
Companies exist so people can have jobs so people can make money. This is fine and dandy, and capitalism at it's best.
There is also the LAW. The LAW exists so that society can function properly. The LAW dictates the rules we all live by.
It is not permitted to violate the LAW in order to make money. A successful company must make it's money while still obeying the LAW.
Microsoft crossed this line. THAT is why they are taking so much crap.
The EU has even stronger antitrust laws than the US.
MS doesn't have to listen to EU laws. They have the option of simply pulling out of europe and not doing business there, of course.
And it's very strange to hear an (I assume) American talk about how 'foreign laws shouldn't apply', when the US tries to impose it's laws on every other country in the world.
There will be no suit unless certain aggrieved parties come forward to complain, signalling their willingness to participate as cooperative witnesses for the prosecution.
File a complaint, or shut up: it's the law.
You probably want to look at a more suitable link that includes more of the chrome for those of you that like to see things in full technicolour.
The game is sort of given away by the "low" in the original URL. The BBC site is meant to viewable in many forms from latest bells and whistles, embrace and extend HTML, through plain and simple HTML to *cough* WML.
Sun aren't exactly struggling... they've turned over record profits and doing a pretty good job of keeping microsoft at bay on the high end server market.
The plan is not a 10% fine. The maximum fine they could impose is 10%.
If there is hope, it lies in the trolls.
I thought he was bloody funny. Must be me. I also think religious fundamentalists are funny.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
No virtual screens: - You can get this working quite easily. DLL Hell - .SO Hell - how many times you downloaded binary package just to find out it needs 4.523.2 version of particular library ? You install it and then all the other programs break.
MCSE is no better or worse than CNE , Solaris admin stuff and all the other crap... It all depends on individual, if you love your job then you will be good at it ( whatever it is, Unix, NT etc ...)
I never said anything to contrary.
Hehe. I lived there for 20 years. More then enough, at least for me.
The thing about the infoworld article was a little bit of details about the US case at the end of the article. More specifically, the part about the API, communication interface, and technical info being available to third party vendors and the "secure facility".
Does this mean, that the linux developers should be able to get all the gory details about the file systems and such? Although I would imagine some of that proprietary stuff would still have to sign those NDAs.
This may have been addressed in one of the trial brief somewhere, but when the brief is some 100 page brief...there is only so much M$ B$ that I can stand.
BreezyGuy
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
Sun hasn't just bitched and moaned- they've filed legal action against MS in the states, and maybe elsewhere. There is a difference between complaining and taking legal action against a company that violates the terms of your agreement with them.
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Of course its fair for a mugging victim to file a complaint.
Two key differences between your scenario and the application of antitrust law to Microsoft:
1) In antitrust cases, the less successful competitor is never the plaintiff. Competitors like Sun, Netscape, and Discover simply press the issue with DOJ until they put their overzealous antitrust department on the case. The competitors assist the prosecution (quite often behind closed doors) but the government (DOJ, EU) is always the plaintiff.
2) In your mugging example, an act of force or fraud was committed. Antitrust law requires neither - it provides only murky definitions of 'fair competition' and 'monopoly' which are open to a very wide range of interpretations.
If Microsoft were to do something like renenge on a contract or commit corporate espionage, I would fully support government action against them.
That's not the case, however. They are in trouble a) in the U.S. for building a browser into their OS (which the KDE and GNOME projects are also doing) and b) in Europe for selling a very popular desktop OS that happens to work best in conjunction with their server OS.
In both of these cases, Microsoft commits neither force nor fraud in getting people to buy its operating systems. All transactions and contracts between Microsoft and consumers / business partners are entirely voluntary acts, a.k.a. acts of free will.
Microsoft is quite vulnerable in the marketplace right now. Linux, KDE2, MacOS X, and GNOME 2.0 are going to war with Windows, and it is going to be a bloodbath. If we let the free market take its most efficient, natural course we will end up with a much better choice of operating systems.
--
RJR-Nabisco was formed because RJR forsaw problems with the tobacco industry and wished to invest in other markets to keep itself alive.
Regardless, Nabisco is now owned by Phillip Morris.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
The GOP's opposition to the DOJ comes from a lot more then the MS trial. While the DOJ has been persuing the Microsoft case, its has refused to examine several cases involving technology sales and campaign contributions involving foreign governments. Reno does little more then cover up for the administration. Likewise, the nature of the Microsoft trial is dubious at best. Not a single consumer has been represented, but instead competing companies. Now look at campaign contributions from these companies and who they went to. Anyone else smell a rat?
MCSE? I've seen MCSE's who barely know the first thing about networking. I would say an applicant's experience would be much better than Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert ;)
Don't throw your computer out the window, throw the Windows out of your computer!
by Neil Sedaka
Lyrics rewritten by Justin Osborn
down dooby doo down down, comma comma
down dooby doo down down
breaking up is hard to do
You know I love my monopoly
Please don't split us up into three
But we'll appeal, it might fall through
'Cause breaking up is hard to do
Do you remember the Macintosh?
And all the startups, that we squashed?
Let's not talk about OS/2
Still breaking up is hard to do
They say we're breaking anti trust rules
The DOJ is a bunch of fools
We've got so much money to spend
Instead of breaking up I wish that we were making DOS again
We just can't beat
the guys at Palm
Our handhelds, were a bomb
Pocket PC, one more debut
While breaking up is hard to do
They say were breaking anti trust rules
The DOJ is a bunch of fools
We've got lots of money to spend
Instead of breaking up I wish that we were making DOS again
Please DOJ
Consider our request
You could just fine us to avoid distress
We'll even go open source too
But breaking up is hard to do
Sheepdot: Open Source good, Closed Source baaaaaaad!
>Possibly as part of the GATT
My guess is that while political leaders sign GATT and the like, the pressure for them to do so comes from the business community, particually multinationals. If this is the case, I can see a possible conflict of interests regarding anything that would make multinationals more accountable to "meddling government interference".
I don't think your reasoning is correct.
1) Conventional business wisdom clearly shows the belief that "bigger is better" - hence, the non-stop mergers: Daimler-Chrysler, AT&T-@Home (or whatever), RJ Renolds-Nabisco, etc. Clearly, CEOs and shareholders do not believe that breaking companies up is better, otherwise these mergers would not be approve, but rather, companies would be spinning parts off.
2) The total valuation on two MS companies (assuming a split-up) is ballpark 10% less than it's current valuation. The decrease is because management infrastructure must be duplicated for the two companies. Redundant costs increase with more sub-corps, hence the lower valuation.
3) You note AT&T as an example of a good breakup. While it may be good for the consumer in the long run, (1) shows that AT&T think that monopoly was better business. Moreover, everyone forgets the phone chaos that lasted upwards of close to 10 years after the breakup. Talking to my parents reminded me that long-distance phone issues were *more* difficult following the break-up than before. Now, it's nice having mucho cheaper rates and such, but that didn't happen overnight.
I believe a breakup of MS is justified and would be a good thing in the long run. But I must admit that the computer industry might experience significant chaos, a major slump, and tech-life as a whole may be a pain for several years afterward.
ShoutingMan.com
Monopolies - gotta catch 'em all.
Why when Europeans refer to civilized nations they always believe that thier way is the only way, we like to go about things are own way and make our own rules, same kinda reasons we had our revolution. No civilized nation produces crap like the teletubbies and Pokemon.
I feel much better now. I was about to move to Europe and make a killing with an old pirated copy of FrontPage and some clip art floppies.
The EU and DOJ already have working relationships on anti-trust, as well as with Canada and Japan, among others. The EU decided to take a wait and see approach with the MS-DOJ action.
matt
I would do it myself if I had the lawyers and the money to pay them. I have certainly enough rage to do it. Microsoft has stolen and raped too many hours of my life. They have mutilated so many programmer's minds with their mis-featured languages. They have annihilated hope and innovation and so many smaller companies. I will never forgive them.
"don't cry scotty, mommy will make it all better. billy, share your ice cream with scotty."
"but mom, it's mine, I bought it with my own paper route money!"
"billy!"
"aw shucks."
I'm not sure about the motives behind Iowa's postion, but it should be pretty obvious what Washington's are. Just how many jobs do you think are tied up in Washington (Seattle, come one people!) because MS has their HQ there?
Not just people that are on salaries; temp workers, contracter, and then food and lodging for all of them.
MS supports a large part of the economy and were MS to shut down or even have to lay off large parts of the workforce, you can damned well bet that there will be a (substantiated or otherwise) large bit of economic turmoil in Washington.
This is not real and true support on WA states part, this is them watching their backs.
(I wonder what is in Iowa...)
Rami
Guy not fooled by little green men.
--
rJames.org - illustration
I wouldn't call Windows 2000 a good product.
The only reason people (including myself) consider IE a good Web browser is because Netscape is so bad right now.
Microsoft doesn't make mouses, they market them. Logitech makes their mouses.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
I don't know, the Japanese making money off of Pokemon and the Power Rangers and every other goofy-ass trend sort of reminds me of Manhattan being bought for a handful of beads. It's like other nations have realized that US consumers can't resist the lure of shiny things.
Maybe it should be "no civilized nation consumes crap like Pokemon and the teletubbies"
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Millennium Dome & Millennium Wheel, Greenwich, London.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
I'm actually not a fan of huge corporations. I am annoyed by the homogenization of culture that comes with them, and their lack of attention to local communities.
As I see it, the problem is that corporations are buying and manipulating our elected representatives, who are giving them special favors like land seized through eminent domain, tax breaks, free utilities & roads, etc. This 'corporate welfare' tilts the market in favor of the large corporations, and against the local small business owners. It distorts the market.
The way I see it, the solution is not to regulate business to death, but to take away from the politicians the power to give those special favors. The fewer handouts they have to give, the less corruption there will be.
I dunno. I think we agree that changes are needed - we just don't quite agree on what those changes should be.
--
Why do you read Slashdot? Contributors and readers here aren't exactly Microsoft sympathizers... there are plenty of other sites for that.
It may have missed everyones attention here but 99% of all major companies USE Microsoft products.Exclusively? For desktops or servers? Please qualify. The larger a company, the more likely it is to use Microsoft products, true, but it is also more likely to use alternatives.
They use then because we are safe in the knowledge that they have been strenuosly tested for deployment in large scale organisations.Are you kidding? Do you make that statement based on your own comparitive testing, or do you really have that much faith in a software company?
Commercial software quality has been deplorable, and I'm not just talking about MS. Vendors are motivated to increase shareholder value, not help their customers.
We've tested MS products extensively in house. I've personally witnessed a staggering number of product failures, some reproducible, some not... many a complete mystery. The time I spend searching for workarounds would better be spent debugging an open source product, I am finding.
I for one, would not even consider using Linux at workThen don't. That's your choice. It doesn't invalidate the reasons anybody else runs GNU/Linux at work.
Users : Most office people are stupid with computers.Were you talking about using Linux yourself, or for your users? Or are you one of the "users"? I'm confused now...
It is difficult enough to set up a printer with Windows and I know what I am doing. It would be a nightmare with RedHat.You can't figure out printtool? Really? Have you tried?
Support : Most people do not have RedHat skills, it would be more difficult to find them.Hint 1: Most admins with BSD/Solaris/AIX/whatever experience (e.g. almost anything BUT Windows) are sufficiently qualified.
Hint 2: Many CS grads these days are quite familiar with GNU/Linux or BSD.
Qualifications : How would I be able to determine the suitability of an applicant if they do not have something like an MCSE ?Interview them, perhaps?
I have never considered an MCSE sufficient or necessary for employment. Really, it doesn't carry much weight with me. (Nor would a Red Hat certification for that matter.)
Before you dismiss my comments... I am a technical manager for a large public company, I interview and hire my own staff, I evaluate products including commercial and free software, and we do use GNU/Linux, among Windows and other systems. I'm not religious about it, I'm just pragmatic.
I still believe though that all this bad publicity will provoke some kind of discussion, which at the end of the day will lead to a change in the desktop OS market :)
"Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before you reach 18" Einstein
And how, pray tell, is Linux "so much ahead" in the area of producing 'scripting applications'?
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
> *sigh* Yet again the unwashed hordes that > comprise the European Union are attempting to
OK, so you know how to be insulting. Well done.
> stifle the free flow of commerce with their
> anachronistic Marxist policies. When will they
> learn that in order to allow everyone the
> highest quality of life, the cut and thrust of
> capitalism needs to be unfettered by poorly
> thought out and implemented laws and
> "watchdogs".
I hate to burst your bubble, but as far as allowing "everyone" the highest quality of life, europe is way ahead.
In the HPI-2 measure (measuring human poverty in industrialised nations) from the UN Human Development Report 2000, the top 8 countries are all european. Japan is ninth, followed by spain.
The USA is last.
best wishes,
Mike.
ps) The report is available here: http://www.undp.org/hdro/
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
My career was in network-operating system support. That is now over, due to everyone switching to MS for the network, and my skills not being needed.
I've now had to take a pay cut and in the past 2 years havn't found anyone that really appreciates my skills. My life has suffered, and it is all Microsoft's fault.
Change careers - you're obviously not cut out to have a job in an industry where you're required to learn brand new things every day throughout your entire career.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
It isn't the European Committee: the correct title in english is the European Commission. The body acting is the Directorate-General (the Commission is divided into a number (at least 20) of these Directorates-General, each with a specific brief) in charge of competition (I forget which number it is, or who the commissioner there is now).
The Commission is not elected. It is, in effect, the European Civil Service. Commission staff are career civil servants, either directly employed by the Commission or seconded from the national civil services. The Commissioners are political appointees, put in place by a complicated system of international horsetrading by the Council of Ministers.
The Commission is accountable to the European Parliament.
As for the popularity or otherwise of the EC's action, it doesn't matter. They're none of them elected officials and, in this regard, they no more have to worry about popularity than the police would if they were investigating a more ordinary crime.
-- AndrewD
A Maze of Twisty Little Laws, All Different.
he.
The French appoint an ex FranceAir Director to head up the investigation into the Concorde crash.
oh yeah, and their breath smells of garlic.
What you Chinese-Japanese-Aussie-Swiss-Russian-Hebrews-Brez ilian-Touaregs are waiting for?
But only in French. No anglophile function calls, if you please.
- j a c r -
This msg is brought to you by the letter 'W'.. for Worthless Wuss
Wouldn't any company that wants to be successful? No, successful companies obey the law, including the anti-trust law. Dominant companies don't get to play the same games that non-dominant ones do.
neither the article nor your post covered the issues I raised... or didn't you read my post? :) "Fines?" is a rhetorical question in the context I in which I used it.
I thought the intention is to save the government some money; "Give the Samba guys the specs they need so we don't need server licenses"
No offense to the French that died to help our nation gain freedom, or just normal cool french that respect the nation as a power to be reckoned with, nor the cool American French around New Orleans. Not real sure about French Canadians, never met any most Canadians just hate them, but in a way it might just be canadians that just have a problem.
Not poor quality simple offering the choice of a much thinner HTML page, as somebody who surf's from his phone on occasion it is a joy to find sites who provide the option to seperate the content from the style.
We're not stupid - of course everyone here knows that. But you're talking about a specific segment of the commercial market. Many people use MS for word processing, presentations, desktop machines, etc. But MS does not have nearly as strong a position in the server market. Most large companies still use large UNIX servers by HP, SGI, or Sun. For example, the company where I'm working has tons of Windows machines for employee use, but if you choose, you can get a Sun SPARC workstation on your desk. The internal servers are HP mostly, with the corporate website running Apache + JServ on a Sun E450 running Solaris. IMHO, open source UNIX (BSD + Linux) is in a good position to take over a lot of market share from commercial UNIX (for instance, the company where I'm at now already has 1 Linux box and 1 FreeBSD box (that I know of), and are considering adding more).
Most office people are stupid with computers. It is difficult enough to set up a printer with Windows and I know what I am doing. It would be a nightmare with RedHat
So? That's why you have IT staff. Most office employees couldn't even install Windows - so what? A non-technical employee will never have to configure a printer by themselves (and besides, they're probably using a network printer anyways).
YEah, cant wait till november to vote Bush for President, and hopefully DDR motherboards will be out by then too so I can get myself a new Athlon system.
Exactly the EU will probably just use the influx of microsoft money to shore up the value of the dollar. Back in the day dollars were supposed to be backed with gold, now the EU wants to back up the Euro with Microsoft money.
If they switch from Windows to Linux,
then I might stay.
Hey if a company doesnt want to share info for developers, dont develop for the platform. Dont wast your and everyone elses time by bitching about it...
Jainith
"DLL Hell - .SO Hell - how many times you downloaded binary package just to find out it needs 4.523.2 version of particular library ?"
Very seldom, actually, and when I have had that problem it has generally been with software under heavy development (i.e. GNOME back when the latest GTK+ was at version 1.1.x)
"You install it and then all the other programs break."
Um, no. If I install it in spite of unsatisfied dependencies, the programs in the package won't work, but the rest of the system won't break.
Also note that binary packages for Linux don't generally install their own versions of system libraries, and package managers cry foul at binary packages that do try to mess with system libraries. Binary packages for Windows often do install their own versions of system libs, and up until recently, Windows didn't complain. That's what causes the DLL Hell.
I have always believe Microsoft are a very untrustworthy company. It has just taken Europeans too long to release they are being taken for a ride
However I also think that the EU is always poking there noses into far too many things which they have little or no real understanding of. This is especially true of computers so I hope they know what they are doing.
Go to the Computer Songs and Parodies site.
...would be around $942 million dollars.
Microsoft know fine well that they are big enough and have a high enough turnover that they are just as well to go ahead with their strategy of charging in and then apologising (if at all) later.
This way they can trample over small companies, generate huge amounts of revenue and then promise it'll never happen again (like a 5 year old).
I wish I knew what the answer was, but at the end of the day MS do make quite a few good products (windows 2000, ie5, ms mouse) and a host of crap ones. Unfortunately they've got enough critical mass to hold the market...
Not so in this case. Breach of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome is a quasi-criminal matter anywhere in the European Union. The Commission can either root out the offenders on their own or act on information received - either way, it's a prosecution rather than an adversarial action.
Yes, IAAL, but no, I don't have a significant EU Competition Law practice. Don't ask me detailed questions.
-- AndrewD
A Maze of Twisty Little Laws, All Different.
This one has been bubbling under the surface for some time now already. It's good to see they [the EU] have finally gotten round to actually doing something more than talking about it - I'd like to see this get through the system beforeI MS is broken up by the US courts.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
I work for a large multinational company as a support technician. I have Microsoft qualifications, and perceive myself as being technically literate. I am an experienced VB programmer and have written quite a few applications that my company has actively deployed for thousands of users. I have been a keen reader of Slashdot for many years, and can't believe how obsessively Slashdot and the over-zealous Linux bigots delight in legal issues and Microsoft. It may have missed everyones attention here but 99% of all major companies USE Microsoft products. They use then because we are safe in the knowledge that they have been strenuosly tested for deployment in large scale organisations. I for one, would not even consider using Linux at work (though I do run Red Hat 6.2 at home for browsing, it is quicker) for the following reasons : Users : Most office people are stupid with computers. It is difficult enough to set up a printer with Windows and I know what I am doing. It would be a nightmare with RedHat. Support : Most people do not have RedHat skills, it would be more difficult to find them. Qualifications : How would I be able to determine the suitability of an applicant if they do not have something like an MCSE ? I see that you can have a RedHat certificate. So before everyone jumps up and down with delight I think that you should stop and think about the above points, as this helps no one.
I know my opinion is an unpopular one, but as both a Windows and Linux user, I think Microsoft is taking way too much crap. The fact is, companies are made to make money. Microsoft did a very good job at this through good marketing, good quality software products that appeal to the average user (I don't think Linux will ever become an OS for the masses). Their a successful company and their helping our economy! Its horrible that they should be punished for doing good in the market.
Its bad enough what the justice department had to by breaking up their successful company. Now this European group wants to join in and kick Microsof while its down? Bill Gates may be a weird and annoying dork, but even he doesnt deserve this kind of harasment. Anyway, even if the lawsuit is a sucess what can the Europeans do against Microsoft? Their an American company, not a European one! Why should Microsoft even have to listen to foreign laws that dont apply to the US?
I think there is a big outsourcing center for Microsoft Support in Iowa. I could be wrong.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Well look what they started. First we always complain about unfair competition and other nations keeping our goods and products out of thier markets and how we should be exporting more and whatnot. Well then they decide to get some money out of Microsoft and humiliate them abit, now they have oppened up a precident of other nations to scrap some cash out of microsoft since no other nations seem to be able to make anything as mainstream as Windows. Oh well.
As long as microsoft sells their trash in europe too, it is our buisness. When you do buisness in another country, you have to do obey their law.
And anyway: No civilised country has the deadpenalty.
America does...
Sorry, ' couldn't help it. Flamebait -1.
The "normal" page is here
In the German anti trust division some people were also thinking about, a trial. But there is no trial yet. The Problem about German Anti Trust Laws is that they are not strict enough as compared to the U.S. A brakeup of a company is AFAIK impossible here(in Germany). There are 2 things the German anti trust division can do: 1. They can force a company to pay some money 2. They can restrict the power of a company i.e. by disalowing them to sell something too cheap. Another Problem with companies like Microsoft is their position. MS is located in USA and their development work is also done in USA. That's why a European/German trial would/must be completely different from an U.S. trial. In spite of this I hope us to have such a trial.
Did anyone else notice the poor quality of the BBC page? I'm not expecting a midi file to play as I browse, but just wedging images in with the text is kind of silly. Or are all /. links going through dejavu.org now?
Replace lo with hi in the URL.
--
bgphints - internet routing news, hints and ti
I hear you brother, pretty much I just figure the damn Europeans just cant compete with thier socialist linux systems. Yeah microsoft can be crap at times but its the best crap we have out there. Also I guess the EU wouldnt mind just to keep fining microsoft would be a nice monetary influx and would probably help them with thier crappy Euro.
You know, I wouldn't like to see what happens when the newly elected US President turns around to the EU and says "MS might be a naughty company but it's OUR naughty company!!". Given the typically right wing views of the candidates and what has been mentioned in other posts, this anouncement can only means trouble!!
IANAL, but from my understanding, the legal systems of many Western nations is adversarial. In other words, SOMEONE must complain to the government about an abuse before the government has the legal ability to do anything about it. Many governments have made some loopholes for severe crimes, but mostly that's they way it works.
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
While the US seems to have settled for a solution that merely trys to stop M$ from abusing it's position in the future, the EU should be able to get M$ to pay for the damage it did the companies it's trampled over.
Why the US department of 'justice' thinks that M$ shouldn't make any redress for it's illegal abuse of monopoly has always baffled me
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Micro~1.oft has been pulling the same games in Europe as in the US. This includes withholding Dos/Win/Nt from any PC manufacturer who doesn't exclusively sell only M$ products. This makes it impossible for any competitors such as SolarisX.86 from being offered or supported in the marketplace. That is just the start of the charges being brought against M$.
There are also ongoing investigations into the "Embrace - Extend - Extinguish" methodology in the open protocols arena. Kerberos, M$-CHAP, SMB, and some others are being investigated. It is possible the prosecutors will not shy away from the technical attacks the way the US prosecutors did. The issue is complex, but there is hope the court will take the time to understand the criminal aspects of micro~1.oft's behaviour, and that it extends into every area of their business.
The courts have also been asking companies for documented examples of FUD, vapor products which never made it to market, exclusionary licenses, and targeted advertising campaigns. There has apparently been an overwhelming response from companies fed up with M$ monopolistic behaviour.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Microsoft embraces the euro currancy.
.Net euro, and the MSN euro, and the Secure IE euro for secure online purchases. Each will be unusable to make purchases through the other methods.
Extends it to other non-euro nations with proprietary extensions. Such as the
Microsoft will extinguish it when consumer frustration over the confusing currencies. Suddenly all of Europe is back to where they were to begin with! So Microsoft will introduce a new currency which only Microsoft has access to but is usable across all online methods. Microsoft apologists will praise this as genius and proof Microsoft only has the interests of consumers in mind and that everyone should stop using those buggy currencies which suffer from unstable fluctuations.
*pulls tongue from cheek*
This rubbish about sun always complaining reminds me of a little kid running to his big brother to go kick the shit out of someone not playing nicely. If sun ain't good enough to compete then go file bankrupcy or sell out to another company is my solution for sun
I don't know the details of this case, but I tend to side with the EU on most things, and I tend to side against MS on most things, so I think I can safely conclude that MS is quite clearly in the wrong here and deserves everything it gets, plus some.
(Informed debate is something that happens to other people)
Heh, what a weak troll attempt. That post was hilarious.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
If the French are involved, perhaps this'll give them the leverage to settle for something reasonable, like documenting and publishing Application Programming Interfaces.
Nah!
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
I'd rather they went after Computer Associates - those bastards should be shut down for some of their stunts, some of which are illegal in Europe.
O yeah. Just 50 years ago fucking civilizied Europeans managed to wipe out couple dozen of million people and now they mind death penalty for criminals in US.
When the revolution comes, the focus of the state will be on further technological and social development, not some economopolitical agenda that the EU pushes for its own selfish benifit.
Er, wasn't the massive government intervention called for due to MSFT corrupting the concept of the free market? In this case, at least, government intervetion is a result of loss of free market power, not a cause of it.
Here are two reasons why:
1. 99.9999% of the time, it is not applied to ensure 'fairness in the marketplace', but rather as a strategic weapon by less successful competitors. This is flat out immoral, and it's so obvious I'm surprised more Slashdotters can't see right through it.
This is the same situation that occurred when Tonya Harding had Nancy Kerrigan roughed up with a pipe before the winter Olympics.
Examples: *Netscape* started the action against MS in the US, *Sun* started the action against MS in Europe, *Tribal Voice* is pushing the FTC and FCC to act against AOL, *Discover* started the antitrust action against Visa/MC, and the list goes on and on, *ALL THE WAY BACK TO PRECIOUS STANDARD OIL*, which was brought down in the same way, at the behest of its competitors
2. Antitrust law is vague and open-ended, revolving around nebulous concepts like 'unfair competition' and 'bundling' instead of more quantifiable, tangible criteria.
If a company prices its products:
Too low - it can be charged with 'predatory pricing'
Too high - it can be charged with 'price gouging' or 'intent to monopolize'
Similar to its competitors - it can be charged with 'price fixing' or 'collusion'
Example 1: "The European Commission said it had sent a 'statement of objections' to the US software giant 'for allegedly abusing its dominant position in the market for personal computer operating systems software by leveraging this power into the market for server software" (from the BBC story) Buncha psychobabble.
Example 2: Microsoft went into the DOJ trial simply being charged with integrating a browser into their OS, and very quickly the trial delved into a whole host of other unrelated issues.
I understand that most people here hate Microsoft. I don't particularly care for them myself.
The slate of recent competitor-brought antitrust action, however, is far more anti-competitive and destructive to the marketplace than any of Microsoft's real or alleged crimes. To encourage these dirty tactics to continue is to sink to a level lower than that of Microsoft.
If Linux is going to win, it should happen because of the hard work and dedication of the thousands of people and companies who are contributing to it. It should not happen because we tilted the marketplace in our favor by using the force of government to get the main competitor out of the way.
--
Looks like we are going to see a repeat of the trampling of the free market.
The complaint is being filed by comepeting big businesses. If consumers were getting screwed, as with AT&T, then go for it. The problem I see is that in the DOJ case, not one consumer was called up. Call up a bunch of customers who have been screwed if you want to make that case. Seeing competing businesses bitching does not inspire any sympathy.
Both Iowa and Washington state have been noted to include this in their party plank. As a FYI, Rep. Jennifer Dunn gave Washington's delegate count during last night's rolling roll call at the convention and it was she who pointedly referred to the Microsoft case.
This is another view of the world.
Corporations are only able to manipulate popular government because of their position in our society. Capitalism, as a system of social policies, hold up the profitable business as the ultimate social good, and frowns on anything (no matter how humane, beautiful, or noble) that gets in the way of that ideal.
If we are going to use money as a universal system of measurement, then governments formed of the people by the people need to have control of amounts of it at least equal to the largest corporations, or the (profit-seeking) interests of those corporations will always outweigh the interests of the people.
And don't try to say that individuals can and should look out for themselves, and don't need a government for protection. A single laid-off employee, or ripped-off consumer, or any other victim or predatory corporate policy means nothing to a large business, and has no chance of standing up to and resisting them alone.
So, if you trust Microsoft, Citibank, Mitsubishi, and the Shell Corporation to be your benevolent protectors, then by all means, strip the power of representational governments to resist them. I, for one, do not trust them, and while I may not agree with everything that my government does and is, I need its support to protect myself against entities far more powerful than myself.
Microsoft is an example of why anti-trust laws need international bite to back them up, if the global community is serious about using them to bring monopolies to heel. It was fortunate that Microsoft was located in a jurisdiction where US anti-trust law could get at them directly. However, what if they were based in Canada? How about Finland? Even better, what about Japan or South Korea, countries where what the English-speaking world would view as collusion, corruption, and anti-competitive business practices are routine parts of trade?
Possibly as part of the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) negotiations, the issue of a global monopoly-busting body is likely going to come up some day. Is such a thing possible? Could it work, or would it just become another political football that the US, EU, and Japan would kick back and forth?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Yes, quite probably. And I quite understand Why Sun feel theatened. But I'm pretty certain that undercutting the competition is not a monopolistic practice. (Is it?)
I think Sun are being the bad guys a lot of the time right now.
So the EU is taking action against Microsoft after a complaint by Sun Microsystems. Well that just about makes my day. As a citizen of the EU I think that just about enough of my tax money is wasted as it is. There's the Big Tent, Big Wheel and that bridge thing in London, paid for by my government and I think I can speak for a large number of my fellow citizens when I say that I could quite comfortably live without these things.
And now I find that as part of the EU we're trying Microsoft on Sun's request. Isn't it enough that Sun are a huge company who could probably afford to take this case to court for themselbes? Obviously not. Someone in the M$ ie Evil brigade has decided to spend my tax money on it too.
Or of course it could be that Tony (and the other EU leaders) wants so much to be like Bill that he's decided that the EU should take a stance against MS. Well maybe not, but you get my point? There are better things to spend my taxes on (like hospitals and schools) than taking MS to a horribly long and complex court battle. Why can't we do that instead?
--
Said it couldn't last, said it wouldn't last... This is the last stand against tomorrow's world.
Did anyone else notice the poor quality of the BBC page? I'm not expecting a midi file to play as I browse, but just wedging images in with the text is kind of silly. Or are all /. links going through dejavu.org now?
from the bbc:
If Microsoft fails to satisfy the commission that its concerns are unfounded, it could face a 10% fine on its revenues. However, in practice fines have never exceeded 1%.
from ZDnet:
The U.S. software giant has two months to reply to theEuropean Commission's allegations. If it fails to satisfy itsconcerns, the Commission could levy a fine of up to 10 percentof the company's worldwide revenues, although such a large fine has never in practice been imposed.
There's your answer: MS will be fined directly by the EU. The EU will place a fine on MS's income in areas under its jurisdiction (like it says, the plan is a 10% penalty, but it might be less since no fines have been greater than 1% as of now)
Is it really THAT hard to read the articles before posting?
Emerson Willowick: Thinker, Writer, Human Being.