Slashdot Mirror
EU May Fine Microsoft
Yokaze writes: "The Wall Street Journal reports about a leaked European Comission document, that suggests that the EU may fine MS for anti-competitive behaviour. The fine can be up to 10% of the annual revenue, or $2.5 billion and may include the demand to remove certain programs from Windows.
The report harshly criticized MS way of taking influence in the case, even speaking of trying to mislead the observers.
Regarding the report of the WSJ, European Competition Commissioner Mario Monti said, that the case is still at a preliminary stage, since MS still has the right to defend itself at a hearing. Or in his own words: 'To speak of a fine when Microsoft has not yet disputed the Commission's preliminary findings both in fact and law -- as it it's right -- is premature.' Since the original is for subscribers only, take a look at Yahoo or the more detailed report from BBC News. Lastly with some different details a report from Heise in German."
I like the fact that at least some gov't agencies are looking out for what's best for the people, and not big business. Please take note America.
I think this will have a major impact on Microsoft's business practices here and overseas, as I really can't envision Microsoft making a EU compliant Windows sans IE, Windows Media, Chat, etc., for them and a bundled Windows for the rest of the world.
And it's a testament to the impact of globalizaton, and interesting to see how foreign government's can influence American businesses in such a major way.
Shame on the bush administraion for letting up on Microsoft. And for the record, I am a huge Microsoft fan, and believe they do make some superior products. Note I said "some". I also love some of thier business practices, and believe business students will be studing these for years to come in universities all over the USA.
--- RFC 1149 Compliant.
From the article:
It says that bundling new features into Windows and Windows server software "has a chilling effect on innovation and competition," according to the report.
That kind of wording is almost identical to that used by the companies which have complained to both Brussels and the US Justice Department about Microsoft's behaviour.
The DoJ and the EU say the same thing, but only the EU will have the resolve to see this through. Opposed to the DoJ's potential wristslpa, the EU starts with a monetary fine and then gets to the heart of the problem! Instead of trying to break up the company, just break up the software, get rid of the bundling which causes the interoperability with other software, allowing other software vendors to break into the MS Windows software market.
I like fire ants. They are very spicy!
Yet.
OK,
- B
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
We can only hope! Can you imagine all that money that used to go to MS licenses going instead to fund new software development because Microsoft is too arrogant to play nice, so it takes its ball and goes home? Something good would come out of that, I'm sure.
The first thing that would be done is every single MS proprietaty protocol will be reverse-engineered (and legally, too, at least for Europe!). Even if those of us in the U.S. wouldn't be able to use it legally, I'm sure it would be useful to us.
We're quickly moving back to the old notion of city-states with their own conflicting sets of laws.
Au contraire! The EU has its foundation in removing barriers of trade (primarily in Europe of course..). And the borders are getting less visible for every year.
You may also say, that removing barriers of trade is all about securing a healthy competition on a larger scale in a smaller world. This is exactly the same reason for which you have laws against monopolies - to secure a healthy competition.
the average user can not be bother to go and look for better/other software and is then tied in to using the default microsoft products. in a way this is supposed to be userfriendly, but you can see it as pushing out the competition. do you really think the avererage user would try and find a different email client, even after all the security alerts, when outlook express is just sitting there ready to use?
i think not.
of course, i would imagine that most slashdot'ers would have the sense to use what ever program they want for the task, but not the average joe. they'll use whatever is there, or most convinient to use.
this is pretty much the main reason why so many people use outlook/outlook express, because it's there!
doesnt give other apps much of a chance does it.
just my thoughts...
Microsoft can easily buy a small country. A fine doesn't help Microsofts victims, doesn't help end users, doesn't fix any lawsuit. Microsoft will laugh its ass off. Those Europeans! (I'm Dutch myself..)
Why not tackle the problem itself? Microsoft is bundling its software to force competition out of the market. Why not force Microsoft to leave IE, Media Player, video editing software, hell even Minesweeper out of the default Windows package? (How much cheaper would it become?:)
There's the application barrier. Force it down! It should be possible to run Win32-applications in a legal way under any operating system. Yes, games too - DirectX should be opened or ported too.
Last but not least, Microsoft should cooperate with developers who struggle with Microsoft Word (or in general, OLE2) import/export filters and other proprietary Microsoft formats (NTFS, WMA, name it..)
If you think that I am radical, you probably don't have an idea of Microsofts power, budgets and market share. Microsoft is of course not evil itself. Their software looks and works actually pretty good, except for their obvious brain damage in security. Their management, their strategy and their habits of misusing their monopoly need a hard kick.
Anyone running Microsoft software has accepted the EULA for that software. No matter what Microsoft claims in their marketing materials about how robust, secure, etc. their products are, the EULA usually quite specifically absolves Microsoft of any liability at all, should their products not perform as advertised and instead cause damage to or destruction of the hardware on which it is used, monetary loss, injury or loss of life, or anything else that most people would term "bad" and start looking for someone to sue over.
This is patently ridiculous, IMHO. Imagine if GM bragged in their commercials about how safe their cars are because they have airbags, and then printed a EULA on their airbags that absolved them of any liability if the user died from using the airbag. Would people still buy GM cars? Probably not. Until software companies can be held totally accountable for the claims they make about the robustness and security of their products, the users of those products will always get the shaft, and have little recourse when they do.
~Philly