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."
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
We're quickly moving back to the old notion of city-states with their own conflicting sets of laws. It's looking harder and harder to do business on a global scale as you open yourself up to provincial, myopic laws of other lands (just ask Dmitry), which I guess is an interesting dichotomy from the WTO's vision of "one world, one corporation".
I'd be happy if Microsoft had the huevos to not even bother to dispute the charges and just pulled all of its software out of the EU, flipping them the bird and leaving them to scramble for dry ground. It'd be a trial by fire for free software supporters, and I'd be very interested to see how it turns out.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
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.
Not since the French banned the word "e-mail" has Europe seemed so anti-American.
Over the last six weeks, the European Union has given a big thumbs-down to a series of telecom and technology mergers driven by U.S.-based companies, from AOL-Time Warner to WorldCom and Sprint. Pointing to the global reach of these proposed deals, Mario Monti, the European competition commissioner, seems to have thrown down the gauntlet to a number of American companies with market-grabbing megamergers on their minds.
By far, the most effective strike was the ruling by the EU Competition Commission against WorldCom's proposed takeover of Sprint. Monti reasoned that yoking together the companies' significant Internet backbone holdings in Europe would give the merged entity so much power that it could effectively make decisions independent of both its competitors and its customers.
Late last week, WorldCom and Sprint formally withdrew all merger plans, officially burying any sort of union.
The EU's move to reject the deal has raised suspicions in the United States about what the Europeans are up to. Timing is a factor in the paranoia. The WorldCom-Sprint move comes on the heels of Brussels' June 19 announcement that it plans to launch a four-month investigation into the AOL-Time Warner deal. American misgivings increased when, barely a week after nixing the WorldCom-Sprint marriage, Monti prevented Microsoft from taking a controlling stake in British cable company Telewest Communications.
So, WorldCom-Sprint fell apart because of Monti and his gang, right? Not so fast.
The Union's ruling was hardly the dealbreaker. It occurred after the U.S. Justice Department had already said it would block the merger and after WorldCom and Sprint had formally withdrawn their application from the EU.
That said, suspicions of anti-Americanism persist nevertheless. After all, the EU hasn't demonstrated the same level of concern with similar deals involving European companies. It approved the merger of Mannesmann and Vodafone, reported to be the world's largest hostile takeover, once Mannesmann ditched its British mobile-phone operator, Orange. Of the dozen EU media and technology cases the Competition Commission has considered since June, four have focused on U.S. companies, and all four have led to extended investigations that blocked mergers, ultimately limiting U.S. control.
If there is a conspiracy afoot, plenty of observers in the United States are ready to root it out. The Washington Post even goes so far as to suggest Monti is trying to stymie U.S. companies to give European telecommunications and Internet companies a chance to catch up. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, hard-core "Ameriphobes" were happy to see Europe apparently standing up to U.S. globalization.
But between the posturing and the transatlantic bluster, the real story behind the U.S. companies' woes has less to do with favoritism than it does the regulatory obstacle course that huge U.S. and European deals will face in the future.
Rather than gunning for American companies, the EU's Competition Commission is more likely reacting to the size of the deals being brokered. The scale of many of the latest proposed mergers is unprecedented. The companies best positioned to pull off these megadeals right now just happen to be American. But that won't be true for long.
"I don't think there are any grounds to say the commission is out to get U.S. companies," says Olivier Kaiser, chair of the competition subcommittee for the American Chamber of Commerce's EU office. "The economy in general is American these days. It just happens to be those American companies that merge. The commission is just applying the rules, but applying them to bigger mergers."
Even Microsoft, which has come under European scrutiny twice in recent months, bears no grudge. It is currently facing an EU investigation for anticompetitive behavior in the packaging and sale of its Windows 98 software. And after consultation with the EU on the company's plans to invest in Telewest, Microsoft agreed to restructure the terms of the deal so it would not have a controlling interest.
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.
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
It's good to see that *someone* out there has the nerve to stand up to The Black Goat of the Woods With a Thousand Young of the software industry. Amazing how much of a difference politicians not owing their positions to these guys makes, isn't it?
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...
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))
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
babalfish translation of the German article
Microsoft threatens high punishment of the European Union trust guards
The European union could impose a high punishment in in August the officially initiated trust legal procedure against Microsoft and force the company to remove features from Windows. This comes out from a confidential document of the European Union commission, which is present the barrier Street journal. The US business paper reported that the commission in unusually sharp tone determines, Microsoft tried, the Ermittler in errs to lead and the procedure obstruct. From this reason a possible punishment will more highly fail, as if Microsoft would have cooperated. The European Union commission could impose a punishment, which amounts to 10 per cent of Microsofts year's turnover, that is 2.5 billion US Dollar.
The Ermittler of the European Union commission is the opinion that Microsoft abused its supremacy in illegal way at Windows and Office software, in order to become generally accepted in the fast growing market for Business and Internet software. Additionally Microsoft tried to displace audio and video often commodity of other manufacturers with the Windows Media Player quotes barrier the Street journal of the European Union paper. Additionally the commission determines, which the Redmonder its operating system Windows 2000 and other applications with intention would have arranged in such a way that these do not co-operate with software of the competitors. In the document the Ermittler suggests requiring modifications at the products in order to prevent such offences in the future.
Additionally the commission accessed Microsofts " abusive and discriminating license policy " on, as well as the refusal of thecompany to put interfaces for competitors openly. The criticism is not directed openly against the new Windows XP, this can however change.
The collecting main of 34 letters, in which Microsofts customers support the company in the procedure allegedly, analyses the commission as attempt, the procedure to obstruct. Many of these letters were written by Microsoft, in other cases knew the companies concerned not that their expression than evidence should serve, place the European Union Kommisssion firmly ( kav / c't)
"I think I would just tell the EU 'If you fellas don't like the way we do business, we can go back to Seattle.'"
..."
...
To which the appropriate European response would be, "Okay, don't let the door hit you in the ass (or arse, since most Europeans speak British English) on the way out. See, there's this fellow named Linus
M$ needs the EU a hell of a lot more than the EU needs M$. M$, as far as I can tell, is running into the limits of growth in the US; this isn't a political/judicial problem as much as it is a simple economic one. Gates, Ballmer et al know this, and they also know that Europe, software-wise, is about where the US was five years ago -- which happens to be the period M$ was experiencing the greatest growth period in its history. They simply cannot walk away from the EU.
Personally, I hope the EU sends them back to Redmond with their tails between their legs. A mass European movement to open-source would have a more powerful effect on the worldwide software market than anything the current US Justic Dept. is likely to do, that's for damn sure
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I am simply shocked that that anyone at MS would do anything like this. Given the outstanding and excellent quality of Microsoft's products, you would expect the same high standards of quality product to apply to the legal and marketing departments.
Wait, it looks like they do.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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.
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.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I'll try my very best...
"The EU could fine Microsoft a large sum in the anti-trust case which officially started in August. They might force the company to remove features from Windows. A classified document of the Commission which the Wall Street Journal got it's hands on implies that. The US-American economy newspaper reports that the Commission was unusually harsh in noting that MS tried to mislead the investigators and obstrucing down the trial. Because of that, the possible fine will be higher than it would have been had MS cooperated. The Commission could issue a fine as large as 10% of Microsoft's annual income; that would be 2.5 billion USD.
The investigators of the EU-Commission are of the opinion that MS illegally used it's dominant position in regard to Windows- and Office-software, to gain the upper hand in the rapidly expanding market for business and Internet software.Furthermore, Microsoft tried to crowd out audio and video software of competing companies with its Windows Media Player, the Wall Street Journal quotes the EU document. The Commission notes that the Redmonders purposely designed their operating system Windows 2000 and other applications so they would not support the software of their competitors. In the document the investigators suggest changes in the products to hinder such offenses in the future.
"Furthermore, the Commission attacked Microsoft's 'abusive and discrimminating licensing politics' as well as the company's refusal to lay open interfaces to competitors. This criticism was not aimed at the new Windows XP, but that could change soon.
"The presentation of 34 letters, in which Microsoft's customers supposedly offer their support for the company in the trial is regarded as an attempt to hinder the trial. Many of these letters had been written by Microsoft itself, in other cases the concerned customers didn't know that their letters were intended as evidence [in Microsoft's trial], the Commission noted."
copyright Verlag Heinz Heise
Does anyone know how much money Microsoft is pumping into lobbying the European Union or EU government officials? Actually, if they could just argue to mitigate the "removal of programs" part of the decision against them, I wonder if 2.4 billion is less then they spend on "the cost of doing business" in Washington. yes 2.5 billion is a lot of money... but they are the teflon company... and teflon isn't cheap on the hill. (also, i would love to hear that it was 2.5 English billions (trillions to us).
It just gives me this wonderful mental image of some european guy, sitting at a table with a little tiny cup of coffee, chainsmoking Gauliouses and screaming at a laptop: "Kerneel paneek!? Whut ze sheet is thees? Ahye gheef you segfawlt wheen you geet thees boot out of your hart drife"
I fail to see the difference to the same guy sitting before the same laptop now screaming "Why hus it purrformed an ileegal operashun again? Damn, the backup file iz not reedable any more!! Wot, it does reboot widout asking now? Hellooo?!". Which goes to show, stupid users are no excuse for dirty tactics nor badly written software.
Of course, I have an overactive imagination and a twisted view of what Europeans look and act like.
Maybe.
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
They seem to have a right to a hearing.
BTW whats the alternative? If you think they shouldnt be allowed to fine foreign companies then I assume you must be suggesting that all anti trust laws be abolished (since fines are the only way you have any sway over foreign companies, and if you can escape all anti trust laws simply by setting up shop in the country with the laws which suit you then there is very little use for them anywhere in a world with a globalized economy).
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.
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.
Microsoft's profits last year in its European, Middle East and Africa region:
4.8 Billion.
Microsoft's profits from two years ago in its European, Middle East and Africa region:
5.1 Billion.
This was the only region in which MS profits declined over this period.
Microsoft's Quarterly Reports
Or did it? Seems I heard once the IBM got in trouble for their attempts to 'lock in' customers by playing games with connectors, similar to Msft's API's. All I can find is this:
[from: http://163.18.14.55/datapro/06090-1.htm]
"A System/390 plug-compatible system is a mainframe computer or other device (such as a storage or tape subsystem) supplied by a vendor that interfaces to IBM's systems or which can substitute for IBM's equipment and run the same programs and peripherals without modification. The original IBM PCM market was effectively created over 40 years ago with the 1956 Consent Decree--the landmark U.S. antitrust legislation that forced IBM to share its technology with other manufacturers. The terms of that decree were largely revoked in January 1996, however. PCM manufacturers are sometimes called "IBMulators" or software-compatible vendor (SCVs)."
I think that antitrust action is necessary to create an "Msft Compatible Application" MARKET (not "monopoly") which will encourage competition, innovation and ultimately benefit the consumer, similar to action taken with IBM to create the Plug Compatible Mainframe MARKET.
Cf. also connector conspiracy.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
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...
Microsoft: Republican party! Thank you for scratching our back. We'll give you $500,000,000 for the next election!
You see the problem? Personally I think prohibiting any corporation from making any political contribution would be in order but I also know that hell will freeze over before that happens.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Do ya think Microsoft would add the cost of the "EU" tax on top of the product? Do you think they would shame the EU by advertising the cost went up because of the EU tax (fine)? They have a monopoly. They can jack up the price without loosing too much market share. If you don't believe me, Star Office cost me less than $70 for the windows/linux retail non upgrade retail boxed version. MS office pro runs about $500. They do about the same thing... If you communicate business to business, It's MS or nothing in most shops.
The truth shall set you free!
Microsoft managed to wiggle out that spanking. I believe they're even more dangerous that IBM was when they were slapped with the consent decree.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Pulling out of the EU would create a huge profit space for competition.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
Ok, so the money wasn't exaclty stolen. What comparison would you buy.
A con-artist would be forced to give all of the money back plus some. (which would be a fine way of dealing with MS force companies to give an extimate of how much damage MS has caused them, then give them 20% of that figure (I'm saying this because companies overestimate damages to the point of about 5x))
A company who sells you goods that don't work and offers no warrenties would eventually get punished and forced to replace items for free.
I could come up with more examples, but I'm tired. I ain't got now job, so how can I pay the rent.
Simple. As part of the ruling imposing the fine, the EU states that MS may not increase the price of [windows/office/whatever] beyond the listed price as of yesterday (being the day before the ruling).
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
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
Check the Reg -
it has the details of the obstruction charge. Apparently they were writing letters from various companies in support of themselves and submitting them as evidence. This is misconduct of the grossest nature - here is an excerpt of an email I wrote a friend (I don't want to retype my point)
Look at the very last part. I've talked to you about this before... Microsoft has now been confirmed to have created misleading commentary and opinions in the following areas: Letters to congress, state officials (recently, in support of dropping the antitrust case); Random individuals writing opinion letters to various local papers (came out in the first antitrust investigation in the win 3.1 days), creating fony "trade groups" to lobby and publish opinions, and now they have been caught submitting false opinions from other companies. It really is the boy who cried wolf, you can't believe pro Microsoft (even deserved) information in any context because they have a history of buying reports and opinions in almost every context. This is a good trick if you can handle it, but it appears that it is going to backfire on MS.
Politics, Culture, Food?
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.
Hah. Code Red, I Love You, Sir Cam, Nimda, whatever, should have tought that lesson long time ago.
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".
You can't?? Surely you must be aware of what lengths corporations will go to in order to maximize profits in multiple markets.
One of the key mistakes MSFT has made is in trying to avoid having a US court rule on punishment. By doing so, they forced the EU (EEC) to act, and unlike America where MSFT has some support and lobbying dollars, the EU does not like MSFT.
It's better to be punished by people who think you're a good guy than by people who are convinced you are bad. But they still persist in thinking that they can escape punishment through trickery.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Unlike many other posters, I believe that, should MSFT pull out of the EU, that the EU (EEC actually) would force the local companies to public domain the software that existed up to that date.
Realize that the EU trade rules apply to many other countries than Europe, including Mexico.
This would be a serious mistake by MSFT, although I'm sure the Open Source folks would love it.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Prohibiting contributions does not work and simply forces politicians to come up with workarounds, which often end up being outside of the law.
Geez, you don't have much faith in politicians, do you? That's a bit sad. Do you really believe what you're saying? Go live in Sweden, Denmark, or even the UK. I think it will change your mind.
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)
Judging by how lucrative MS's practices are, I almost wish some of the stocks I own would get in the habit of shooting themselves in the foot. Eventually MS will tap out, but it's been a hell of a ride for a long time -- which is about all you can ask for as a shareholder. Err, other than ethical behavior, that is; but that only concerns a few eccentric cranks.
I have on occasion been in business situations that involved ticklish ethical questions. For example in the early 90s I was involved with a group where the marketing director wanted to carpet bomb various usenet groups with postings (this was before anyone heard of spam). If I hadn't already been an old timer who could point out the damage to our reputation that thoughtless posting on what was a cooperative medium, we would have been pioneering spammers. It's hard to maintain your integrity and maximize your chances for success. More often than not these aspects of a decision get confused, which if you think about it is not surprising: if you are successful, almost nobody questions you; if you fail, then they question everything, including your ethics. And people tend look to each other for confirmation that they haven't gone beyond the pale of decency. It's normally a healthy thing. But success tends to bless any practice that would be reviled if failure followed it, independent of its own usefulness or morality. I suspect that given enough success a group of people will eventually develop a culture that is proud of things that disgust ordinary people.
A little failure is character building; but MS is a company that has never ever had any failure that mattered. So, is it any wonder that shame doesn't figure into their corporate culture? It looks to us like they shot themselve in the foot because they acted in a way that would make anyone else blush. But it doesn't matter, because none of it has affected the bottom line. And, it seems like with the DOJ rolling over and dying, once again the bullet has missed their foot.
Which given normal business psychology justifies everything that they have done. Like the GM chairman who said "What's good for GM is good for the country," they must have a very unshakable sense of the rightness of their cause.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Those of you who remember the IBM antitrust years may recall one of the outcomes of that debacle: IBM was forced to unbundle its services from its products, and forced to document its interfaces. The birth of a reasonably fair aftermarket soon followed.
Let's home this happens to Microsoft too, and they have to completely remove all mentions of Passport/Hotmail from Windows, as well as IE and Media Player.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Really depends what you want - they're all different!
I've moved around a bit and I'm quite happy in Spain. Good climate, great food, friendly people. The legal system is screwed up but the politics isn't as corrupt as I expected it to be and it's improving all the time.
Members of the European Paliament are elected in free elections all across Europe. The Parliament is quite weak though. Much more power lies in the commission, which consists of representatioves of the nations (2 for the big ones, one for the small nations), and who from the "European Government" if you wish. [Though our antieuropean British friends would become hysterical if you told them there was a European government).
Moritz