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."

Comments

Put the fine to use

[0tim0]

Personally, I would be happy with a fine in the US -- if the fine could be used to support an open source consumer OS.

IOW, fine MS a billion or so dollars and use it to fund an (OSX-like) GUI for, say, linux (or FreeBSD, or whatever).

MS would gladly pay the money to get out of this mess. And it would be the only viable way (that I can think of) to actually have a real Windows alternative. Everybody wins.

I don't know if our courts are allowed to make creative punishments like that. But it probably could be a decent settlement.

--tim

Re:Put the fine to use

[SamBeckett]

Why exactly is it our (the USA) government's job to fund an alternative OS? If there were money to be made for an alternative OS, people would make the OS for the money...

But Microsoft is a monopoly you say... -- Exactly the point of the case.. Don't allow Microsoft to use their normal strong-arm tacticts (at the fear of further punishment, break-ups) so any and all competitors won't be crushed.

That is why I think any one who wants the government to force Microsoft to open Windows' source code is on crack. Well, that and another reason-- if we all agree that Windows sucks *ss, then why do we want the source code so bad?

Re:Put the fine to use

[liquidsin]

As much as I think this is a fantastic idea, I doubt that the U.S. gov't would force a company to fund their competitors. Too bad though...

Re:Put the fine to use

[motorsabbath]

Actually, people would want the source to Office to get the ability to seamlessly export/import Office docs so all he Office-junkies could use other apps (plug: try Applixware). Also, openin the source to wDOS is the *only* way the os will ever be secured and have its holes properly patched.

Re:Put the fine to use

[anandsr]

Opening Windows Source is bad, but a better
alternative would be to force them to produce an
open source emulator, which would run any and every
software that they do not bundle with their OS.
Make it mandatory that all of their software must
run on that emulator. Also they should also
be forced to open their file formats.
The other thing is that this open source emulator
must also run on another OS which is not from MS.
This will keep them honest and their interfaces
open. It will also let them INNOVATE as much as
they want without stopping others from innovating.

Re:Put the fine to use

[Mr_Ust]

Why not? They've done it before. Read up on the Canadian soft lumber dispute that was still going on as of four months ago. The US thinks British Columbia is flooding the market with cheap lumber, so they put up a 30% tarrif and gave that money to competitors in the US. In effect, Canadian companies are being punished twice!

Aim Gun, Shoot Foot...

[FatRatBastard]

Microsoft yet again (apparently) makes life more difficult for themselves. I'm no huge fan of the company, but even I think that they would have had a *much* better time in both the US trial and EU investigation if they didn't play so dirty (the whole video debacle at the US trial, the apparent obstruction of justice with the EU trial)

Monopoly cases are HARD to prove (and should be, as bad as a true monopoly can be I think the bar should be set very high when determining if a company is an abusive monopoly). While under investigation Intel played ball, didn't get into a "winning at all cost" mentality, consented to a few behavioral changes, and came out of it intact.

I wonder if the threat of a big $$$ (er.. $EU) settlement will finally piss a few of the large MS stockholders into applying a little pressure on MS management to change tactics.

Odd stuff

[Otis_INF]

I don't know this for sure, since IANAL, but how can a commission first make its own laws and then by these own laws sue a company to pay a fine to that same commission? Isn't that odd? Shouldn't an independent judge, that is: independent of the EC and EU, rule on this, instead of the EC and/or EU?

Also, how on earth can windows media player be the KEY feature so Sun (the major complaining company in this case) sells less servers... Does the EU have any person on board with a clue or not?

(mind you: next time these clueless morons are sueing a linux related company over what they think shouldn't be happening while they don't understand one single bit (pun intended))

Why pick on MS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Face it for the average joe-blow that likes pointy-clicky things why would they switch over to an OS like linux that is hard to install, setup and generally use.

Think I'm a liar, then why is Linux going the way of Windows with fancy GUI's and shiny install programs?

At this point in time Windows [Win98 anyways] is far more useable as an OS than Redhat 7.1. And lets not overlook that on my MS [evil?] OS I am using tons of OSS such as GNU C Compiler, Mozilla, etc..

Using Windows and OSS should not be mutually exclusive like some OSS zealots think it is....

My 2 cents.

Im all for this...

[night_flyer]

Its not that I am Anti M$, but that they cant compete on the open market with their product... so they bundle it up with the OS...

would a person, if they had a choice pick windows media player over WinAmp if they had to do research and make a choice?

would they pick (or Buy) Outlook (Express) or would they choose (Free) Agent?

Would they buy windows compression over winzip?

Would they choose IE over Netscape?

How about Defrag over Norton Utilities? (even thought they use the same engine)

let the market decide... if they dont then let those greater than them (in power anyway) punish them...

Re:this aint communism

[Sloppy]

hey, how about your give your life savings to the government so starving people in this country can eat??

That is not comparable, unless the life savings in question, was profit from a crime.

Are you in favor of criminals getting to keep ill-gotten gains? For example, if I rob a bank and get caught, do I still get to keep the money? The situation is no different with Microsoft and the sales revenue that they got from illegal trade-restraining per-processor contracts. If Microsoft were willing to compete in a free market, none of this would be happening to them. Free market advocates != commies. Law and justice advocates != commies.

What amazes me is the fine's 10% of revenue limit. That's like I rob a bank and get caught, and only have to give 10% back.

Re:removing of programs

[$eRvmanIO]

"I certainly agree about the removal of programs from windows because if you look at it like this, when windows is installed, it installs media player, internet explorer, outlook express, and possibly a few other programs without much of a choice for which program you want to you. this is especially true for pre-installed versions of windows or newbie installs where they pretty much install everything."

Would you say the same for a Linux Distro then? Personally, I enjoy Linux coming with a ton of free apps. Saves me from downloading them. If Microsoft wants to give it to you "free", why not use it? It makes it easier for the non-techie to use. Though I wouldn't advocate having Grandma using Outlook Express to open e-mails with subjects "I Love You;)"

Besides, I just got the final OEM version of XP Pro on my desktop. Hell, I like it. I think its better than Windows 2000 (or atleast it runs on my system better than Win2k did).

Once they threaten that, they're dead (in europe)

[Baki]

I could imagine Microsoft threatening pulling out it's software, thinking it might scare Europe and have them come back at their knees.

Well, they might, just for short term tactics.
However such a move would create a shock in Europe, making everyone to realise how very dangerous the current situation is, being so dependant upon the software of a single (foreign) company.

Surely, this shock would initiate a big effort to get rid of this dangerous dependance and spell the end of MSFT software in Europe.

I can only hope they pull out their software or at least threaten to do it. It might finally open the eyes of many.

Corrupt politics in the US

[pubjames]

What I don't understand is, why do Americans seem to be so complacent about their corrupt legal and political system?

I'm not an American, and haven't spent much time there, so I'm only going by what I see and read on the web and newspapers. But it seems to me that a great number of Americans believe their politicians and law makers are highly influenced by the men with the money. In Europe, that kind of thing is seen as very corrupt and not worthy of a modern, democratic society. Frankly it is viewed as a bit backward and a sign of a democratic system that hasn't matured yet. Italy comes to mind as a country in Europe that has a similar reputation.

How is it that Americans are so convinced of the superiority of their country, say it is 'the land of the free', has a large number of intellectuals, etc, and yet don't seem to be worried about such a corrupt system?

This isn't a troll, and I'm not bashing America (both Europe and the US have their good and bad points), but I would like opinions about why Americans seem to have this blindspot.

Re:Corrupt politics in the US

[kin_korn_karn]

Americans feel this way because we're stuck.

There are effectively two governments here: the corporations and the true government.

The corporations own the people. If we fight them, we lose our jobs, and everybody gets hurt in the long run, because money isn't in it economy, and blah blah blah.

The government is de facto controlled by the corporations due to lobbying interests and the way political campaigns are financed in the USA. If we fight the government, we are criminals, and with the interlocking of law enforcement, credit reporting, and the continual effort to learn as much about us as they can, there is literally no recourse.

Lobbying was meant to bring the people to Congress to for oversight of our representatives, but it's become an auction of legislators. Corporations hire lobbying companies to push their agendas.

So we're stuck in a cycle. Fight the corps, lose your money. Fight the government, lose your money AND your freedom. The only thing that could fix it is a catastrophic deconstruction of the corporate system that controls us, but the government will always quell such things in the name of the economy and keeping their pockets full.

So you tell me - short of a second civil war, what COULD we do??

Re:Corrupt politics in the US

[Koreantoast]

The problem isn't one that can easily be defined as right or wrong.

For one, the people with the money are not all rich businessmen representing massive American and foreign megacorporations. A huge chunk of that money comes from citizen-based interest groups known as PAC's (political action committees). In 2000, the top donor was not a corporation, but a labor union, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, who gave twice as much as Microsoft did that year. It should be noted that labor unions made up 6 of the top 10 contributors (AT&T, Microsoft, Citibank, and Goldman Sachs the other 4). Other notable groups include issue-based coalitions such as the NRA (the pro-firearms lobby). Any radical funding reforms would be extrememly dangerous for PACs in the United States, not just corporations.

And as much as many Americans may bash special interest groups, many of these interests provide a strong collective voice in the political system for large factions within the United States populace. Many of the intellectuals you mention are active, but they decide to play the game and battle their opponents in the political arena.

I'm not saying reform isn't necessary; like any human endeavor, the American system isn't perfect. However, the system does work... you just need to know how to play it. It's a lot more complex and gray than many people percieve it to be.

Perhaps we should take lessons from the NRA... I'm sure collectively, tech workers can scrape together more money than a bunch of guntotin' blue collar workers.

Oh... FYI

http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/storysofar/ to pcontribs.asp?Bkdn=Source

Re:Looking out or the people

[saridder]

Merger and acquisitions are perfectly respected and legitimate practices. I can name plenty of respected technology companies who do the exact same thing through shrewd acquisition strategies (Cisco for starters).

Their marketing strategy to basic consumers is top notch and rival such companies such as Proctor & Gamble (in fact, they have their Marketing Director).

They do extensive market research and consumer testing.

Their financial practices are in order and have over $30 billion in cold hard cash (not stocks) sitting in the bank to weather any storm (most companies in the world don't have a market cap near 30 billion, never mind cash).

I agree with some of your points. I can't stand their "Embrace and Extend" strategy, their bullying of competitors, arrogant attitude towards government and competitors, and their "Big Brother" approach to software licensing and registration. I believe they are a monopoly, but haven't destroyed all competition yet.

Sony will still be a strong competitor in the video came console market, AOL stomps all over MSN's subscription base and Real Networks kill's MS in the digital media market.

Watch out for sin taxes

[AllInOne]

Watch out! This could be like putting a "sin tax" on Microsoft.

Sin taxes are leveled on products and services that the government wants to discourage but is afraid to outlaw: gambling, liquor, tobacco...

At first the money that comes in is just "surplus", but very soon it gets its own constituancy -- the money is earmarked to support specific programs.

Next thing you know you can't afford to restrict the "sin" because it is supporting essential social programs.

You hear: "We can't outlaw the lottery (even tho it is essentially a tax on those who can least afford it ) because without the lottery would wouldn't have funds for X (in PA it's senior citizens, in NY it's schools)"

When the government collects 10% more from the sale of Microsoft products through a sin tax than they do from a Microsoft competitor they are no longer indifferent between a Microsoft product and a competitor, they favor Microsoft! This ends up having the exact opposite from the effect indended.

As other posters have submitted, it would be very important to watch where the collected funds would go, especially for this reason...

Re:Once they threaten that, they're dead (in europ

[IPFreely]

I doubt MS would ever even consider pulling out of any area. A desktop without MS software is a desktop with something else. Microsofts whole tactic has been to eliminate competition whatever the cost, even at a big loss. They usually do this by displacing competative software on as many desktops as possible, not leaving any profit space for the competition to live in.

Pulling out of the EU would create a huge profit space for competition.

Re:Looking out or the people

[IPFreely]

Any foreign government is more likely to pound on MS than the US would. MS funnels money out of other countries and into the US. The US government likes this, the others don't. As long as MS brings in the money (read: Trade Balance) then they are doing some good for the US economy at least on paper. The fact that many US companies have also been the victim of this doesn't show up very well on the overall statistics.

You know what? I like it.

[ghislain_leblanc]

This whole software bundling issue. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Linux AND Windows NT sysadmin. At home, I use Windows most of the time because the software I use to create music in my spare time (Cubase) does not run on Linux (yet). But anyway, that's not the point...

I just wanted to say that I actualy like the fact that all this software is included in Windows 2000, why? Because it's all "windows friendly" in the way that all is connected with everything else in OLE and DDE. I know these are usable for other software vendors but for some reason, it's just not as transparent as when it is Microsoft native stuff. All their software looks and acts the same (if it works well is another story...), I feel confort in the fact that I won't have any interface surprises with them as opposed to some other vendors who put stuff "just because it can be done".