EU Crosshair Still Points at Microsoft

T-Kir writes "The BBC has an interesting article saying that now Microsoft has had the settlement granted in the US, it still faces EU sanctions concerning software bundling (or should that be bungling?) into its OS and deliberate attempts at inoperability with non-MS server operating systems."

Comments

Maybe the people in EU actualy have....

[2000 Britneys]

Some common sense. I mean cmon if quacks like a duck, looks like a duck it must be a duck.

As for myself I would love to see some of the major computer makers (Dell, Gateway, Compaq, IBM) start pushing Linux and other OSes with their hardware.

Three problems

[MosesJones]

1) US courts regularly deny the authority of courts abroad

2) US courts regularly assume their rules apply abroad.

3) When the EU has ruled against US product before (growth hormone is not allowed in beef sold in the EU) the US claims it is a restraint of trade and raises it to the EU.

So what will probably happen is MS will rightly be found guilty, they will ignore the remedy, and when it is enforced they will bleat to the president who will "defend US interests", he will ignore the rights of foreign courts and claim this is purely anti-competative and anti-US rather than being a different resolution applied to EXACTLY the same finding of guilt found in the US.

Personally I hope the EU stands up and gives them a bloody nose, and makes its move over to Open Source even quicker.

Re:Three problems

[albanac]

All of your points are accurate. WRT the first two, however, there is no way the US could (under legal arenas) challenge an EU court ruling, and I don't think they'd be stupid enough to try. The one piece of information you didn't catch is that some four months ago, when the EU declared it's intention to pursue MS independently of the US DOJ, the State Deparmemnt immediately issued sabre-rattlings to the effect that if the EU attempted to do anything different or more realistic than the DOJ had done, the US would embark on an immediate and GDP-wide trade-war against the entire EU, covering everything from steel to immigration visas, until the EU backed off. The EUs response was to ignore them.

~cHris

Re:Three problems

[sydlexic]

if what you say is true (and we of the sheep have no reason to doubt), then the EU ranks right up there with the rest of those wrongdoing terrorist organizations and we should exercise our god given right to pre-emptively smite then into oblivion! fetche le hellfire!

Re:Three problems

[sql*kitten]

1) US courts regularly deny the authority of courts abroad

2) US courts regularly assume their rules apply abroad.


The EU courts don't always agree with the courts of the member countries, which is fortunate since it is far from unanimous amongst voters that the EU should take precedence over national sovereignty. And EU member countries freely ignore the EU courts.

So what will probably happen is MS will rightly be found guilty, they will ignore the remedy

More likely is that MS will ignore the EU court, as most EU members do, and nothing will happen until national governments (most likely the Germans or Spanish, who seem to be the most unfriendly to MS) take an interest.

Re:Three problems

[ninthwave]

That might have to do with the fact that steel tarifs were pushed through with no regard to Europe or Asia. And the EU has decided that if the US will use tarifs against the global rules it pushes than they have to be flexible when it comes to their own local interests also. The US economy is currently bolster by 2/3s income coming from internal consumer spending and debt. Consumer confidence is starting to slip. Foreign markets are important and not pissing off large markets will need to be taken into account. With China developing its own os and chipsets, India moving to open source. The foreign market is shrinking for Microsoft. So it might want to play ball with documentation of its api's. Or it can squeeze more money out of its current customers with subscriber based liscenses (wait I believe that is happening). I don't like governments interferring with trade but this includes governments enforcing global trade laws that limit countries from starting their own products. All and all it is silly but at the end a government needs to take care of its industries and peoples and if it needs to limit an external company than it has a right to do such. Be it the EU telling off microsoft or GWBush and steel tarifs.

Re:Three problems

[pubjames]

1) US courts regularly deny the authority of courts abroad

2) US courts regularly assume their rules apply abroad.

This stuff doesn't really matter but the EU is dealing with trade within the EU zone. So it doesn't really matter that much what the US thinks. And don't assume that the US can just do whatever it wants and get away with it. There's something called the WTO, which has ruled heavily against the US and in favour of the EU recently with regards to steel tarrifs. It's true that the US is a big bully, but the EU is growing and seems increasingly confident fighting back.

Re:Three problems

[Alsee]

State Deparmemnt immediately issued sabre-rattlings to the effect that...

The only thing that suprized me there is that I hadn't heard about it. Do you happen to have a good link on it?

The EUs response was to ignore them.

Cool, thanx. (And I'm an American, chuckle)

-

Re:Three problems

[nrosier]

When the EU has ruled against US product before (growth hormone is not allowed in beef sold in the EU) the US claims it is a restraint of trade and raises it to the EU.

This is IMHO not a restraint of trade. It just says US companies have to follow EU laws and rules, the same rules European companies have to apply to. I'm sure their are US rules (about safety of products e.g.) that force non-US companies to produce/ship different products than those sold on their home market.
US companies can export their beef, as long as it's growth hormone free. Where's the restriction? You apply to the rule.... you get to export it to the EU.

CKK's ruling in the US is just a joke. I hope the EU will do a better job.

Re:Three problems

[kir]

...the US would embark on an immediate and GDP-wide trade-war against the entire EU...

Wow! That's a pretty LOUD statement. You wouldn't happen to have a link to a news article or a statement release by the State Department... would you? I'd be really surprised if you provided one.

Re:Three problems

[albanac]

As a matter of fact I don't, I saw the report that the BBC World Service did on it. Sorry, but the web is not my only source for information. It isn't even my primary source.

~cHris

Tough Cookie

[mmport80]

For those who don't know much about the EU's competition commisioner - he is a tough cookie and isn't afraid to take on large companies.

Look at what he did to Nintendo recently and also the $45bn GE and Honeywell merger - which he basically stopped - even thought the US would have allowed it. The last case shows what the competition commision thinks about "consistency".

Re:Tough Cookie

[Diabolical]

And how would MicroSoft do this without hurting it's own sales? Did you think that MS earns most of it's money in the US? If MS would do that they would lose millions of dollars a day in loss of sales.

If the EU would transfer to Linux or any other OS. Would you think this to be a bad thing? Consider the whole new world and market for all those ISV's who are holding out now because of Linux's market share.

(come to think of it... that wouldn't be a bad thing at all.....)

Re:Tough Cookie

[Mac Degger]

Not really that tough: seems that Nintendo had made roughly 450 million with their illegal trade practices. They where fined 145 million. Which means they still made a cool 300 million by illegal means. What a wristslap...

Re:Tough Cookie

[Noel]

...is Microsoft evil, or are governments evil in general?

Yes. And no.

Any organization (company, government, religion, whatever) large enough to wield significant power over a significant number of people has the potential to become evil. If the organization uses this power to enhance itself by harming others, then it has become evil.

Re:Does the EU have power?

[BabyDave]

Could someone explain what the EU has power to do?
Seems to me like they couldn't do much...

Tell that to Nintendo.

What the EU can do...

[MosesJones]

1) Fine MS, this could be a small amount (say similar to the $150m it fined Nintendo) or a large amount (its MS what should the limit be).

2) Reorganise the way MS products are classified which could change the way they are taxed.

3) Ban certain products from being sold in the EU.

4) Declare certain individuals to be culpable for the violations and have them subject to arrest if they enter the EU.

Quite a few other things, saying they can't do much is like when President Bush demanded the Chinese do nothing to that spy plane.... so they sent it back in crates.

Re:What the EU can do...

[TamMan2000]

These are all steps in the right direction, but I don't really see any of them being any more effective than the slap on the wrist that they already got in the US.

To me, it seems like the EU is powerless to stop MS monopolistic practices.

Re:What the EU can do...

[Mr_Dyqik]

The limit of the fines that the EU can levy is 10% of either profits or revenue (can't remember which) which would be a nice addition to the EU budget.

I assume they can also impose conditions that Microsoft have to meet to avoid the above.

They might also be able to recommend that EU governments stop using Microsoft products.

Re:Does the EU have power?

[meringuoid]

Could someone explain what the EU has power to do? Seems to me like they couldn't do much...

They can't split Microsoft, because they're a foreign corporation. They can, however, impose conditions on Microsoft which they will have to obey if they want to continue doing business in the EU.

It's unlikely to come to a trade war; EU business is too addicted to MS software to allow Brussels to impose punitive tariffs, for instance. Chances are MS will be fined a comparatively small amount and told not to do it again...

Re:Does the EU have power?

[Shimbo]

Could someone explain what the EU has power to do?
Seems to me like they couldn't do much...

Microsoft could be in line for fines totalling up to $2.5bn (£1.75bn) levied by the European Commission.

Nuff said.

Re:Does the EU have power?

[cobbaut]

The EU is a bigger market than the US. They should be able to do more than the US government did...

Besides this, more and more EU countries are switching to Linux solutions (see previous /. stories).

Different point of view

[InrdZQdxdqn]

"Our case is quite different from a factual point of view," (Quoted from the article)

Yes, it is.

For Europe the question is more like:

Do we want an american company to control nearly all desktops in Europe (in the world) ?

The answer in the US might be "yes, that's fine". But I hope we'll do better in Europe.

Remember Echelon?

Re:Different point of view

[kcbrown]

Do we want an american company to control nearly all desktops in Europe (in the world)?

The answer in the US might be "yes, that's fine". But I hope we'll do better in Europe.

Remember Echelon?

Yes. And what has happened to Echelon since then? Not a goddamned thing.

So don't get your hopes up.

This will hopefully put M$ in the right place

[suman28]

We have seen the EU take on Honeywell before and the deal was struck down. Hopefully, M$ will be found guilty and be forced to reduce their market share at least in Europe. This with the addition of some govts promoting Linux as a cheaper alternative will eventually cut M$ down to size. Then ofcourse, there is the M$ driving their "customers" away with promoting valid licenses. With Longhorn, I can see less and less people buying/installing Windows to avoid the hassle. M$ won't go down over night, but every dog has its day, though I would hate to call M$ a dog, because atleast my dog is my very best friend.

Re:Damnit

[ninthwave]

I remember when Oem's were selling beOS in a dual boot configuration with Microsoft. Microsoft began using its market control to force the Oem's to drop Beos. BeOS is a dead OS now but it was very good at what it did and had potential. But in the market environment it had no chance. This isn't just Linux getting better than Windows, it is about the software that was better than Windows getting a chance. If Microsoft didn't force BeOS out of the ipaq they would have had capital to keep developing. If they would have had device manufacturers working with them instead of scared of losing the works with window logo on their packaging it would have had more hardware support. And this is just one example of the problem with a monopoly affecting innovation. There are more out there. So by all means for me it is not about Linux or Microsoft, it is about a market that allows the best product to surface.

Re:Does the EU have power?

[MoobY]

> Could someone explain what the EU has power to do?

Note that Europe is growing bigger than the US every minute, not only in population, which will soon be over 500 million (200million more than the US, IIRC), but also economically. Europe isn't some small kid the US can wack down! It's insane to think that Europe doesn't have any power and pretty US-narrow-minded.

Of course

[dirtyhank]

I don't know what you mean with "power" but the EU could eventually ban Microsoft's products in 15 countries across Europe. This would seriously hurt M$ figures.

Of course, some EU members could disobey this ban but then they would face severe penalties. It happens all the time.

Anyway, no country seems to be very happy with M$ here in Europe these days so i'd bet there wouldn't be any complains if EU comission bans M$ products.

Re:Of course

[ninthwave]

Actually 20 countries the Irish passed the referendum which allows the EU expansion to go through. More former eastern block countries are coming in within the coming years.

Re:Does the EU have power?

[albanac]

Firstly, they can (and have in the past) impose fairly epic fine levels on companies they feel to be Not Nice People. The recent Nintendo judgement was relatively leniant.

Secondly, they can ban sales of bundled os + integrated apps within the EU by MS. And they can do it without having any impact on people like SuSE; that is in fact one of the courses already discussed by the commissioner in question.

Thirdly, they can adjudge MS' EULA's illegal under EU human rights laws. This is another remedy which has been discussed.

Basically, they can make life very hard for MS in the market from which MS derives it's larges revenues (they sell more software here than there).

~cHris

Maybe by 2010...

[Kjella]

The EU beaurocracy is not exactly known for being speed, and I'm sure MS will manage to get loopholes in any ruling big enough to ram a small country through, at least on the first try.

If anything, MS will try to break compatibility somehow using their "Trusted Computing" newspeak, before the Linux marked share gets too big to handle. While Linux might not be the big home desktop hit, it is making inroads in the corporate and educational community.

Problem is, that these lawsuits are kinda like submarine patent suits.

1. They take way too long before they are filed (by desire by the submariners, by beaurocracy by EU/US)
2. By the time they actually do everybody is using it (gif patent or IE)
3. Any ruling won't do anything about that, and when they try to resolve it the technology has evolved beyond that point to new problems (.gif patent by .png, but lots of other submarines. IE now removable, but WMP/Messenger/whatever is not)

Don't expect laws to help Linux. If anything, pray that the pirates won't find any ways to pirate secure Windows/Office/whatever. Then we'll see how many who will truly cough up $$$ for those products.

Kjella

Re:Maybe by 2010...

[pubjames]

The EU beaurocracy is not exactly known for being speed

2001 Simultaneously introduce new currency across 11 countries

2004 Expand union to include another 10 countries

Yep, they sure look like slow movers to me.

Re:Maybe by 2010...

[cscx]

but WMP/Messenger/whatever is not

Uh, yeah, it is. I uninstalled Messenger from my machine. RunDll32 advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection %windir%\INF\msmsgs.inf,BLC.Remove

That's it. Gone. And I don't want any complaining from the Linux fanboys -- you should be used to the command line.

Re:Maybe by 2010...

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Out of idle curiosity, where is that documented?

Yeah, Linux guys are used to the command line, but stuff *DOES* tend to be documented (even if done poorly) in HOWTOs or man pages.

Re:Maybe by 2010...

[cscx]

Aqui, amigo ;)

Re:Maybe by 2010...

[El Cabri]

The EU beaurocracy is not exactly known for being speed, and I'm sure MS will manage to get loopholes in any ruling big enough to ram a small country through, at least on the first try.

Actually the EU antitrust procedures are much, much faster than in the US. They are even too fast according to the European Court of Justice, which has recently struck down a couple of its rulings over hasty procedures (the companies where not even informed of why their deals were rejected). And competition commissioner Mario Monti (nicknamed Super Mario after he imposed a $150M fine on Nintendo) has personnaly more power on the EU trade zone than the US DoJ has over the US.

Re:Maybe by 2010...

[Amazing Quantum Man]

And why would a Win2K user go there?

It's not about you...

[danro]

Keep in mind that there are over 60 thousand employees at Microsoft. All of us have families and mortgages to pay just like you

And what those 60 000 people do, or more to the point, what their executives do effects millions of people all over the world in a negative way. No wonder people are "anti-microsoft".
I have no beef with MS emplyees, but the pracices of MS the company is a daily annoyance to me and gets _me_ home later to _my_ family.

Even if you work at MS you must be blind not to see why a lot of computer professionals have no trouble finding reasons to dislike MS products.

...and of course there is the howling mass of teenage slashroids. They annoy me too sometimes.

Re:Does the EU have power?

[pubjames]

Could someone explain what the EU has power to do?

The EU can fine Microsoft upto I believe 10% of its global revenue, so it is a very big deal indeed.

Don't underestimate them. They have shown there teeth on several occasions recently and seem less frightened to use their powers than the authorities in the USA have shown. It's not so easy for corporations to engage in "lobbying" to get their own way in the EU as it is in the USA.

They can't stop MS..

[Anonymous Coward]

..besides, business is not where to try to hit them.

You see, the world's offices run on Office. Deny them that, and they get cranky. They start making campaign contributions, and suddenly, laws everywhere become the plaything of Microsoft.

Even if it'd cost more to buy some politicians than to switch to Open Office or something else, businesses won't stand for it. Why? Because - business despises the idea of governments telling them what they can and can't do. Businesses like *telling* governments what they can and can't do.

What would be great is if the EU frees European OEMs from the threats of Microsoft. Now, that would cause slight pain.

You see, consumers dislike the idea of paying for things they believe they do not need. How many of you here know people who still run Win 98? I can't count the people I know who are still running it. Each one of those is money that's not being sent to One Microsoft Way.

Will people, given the choice, stop buying upgrades with each computer? Yes, they will. Installing an operating system is *NOT* rocket science, and almost everyone has a kid down the street who will do it for $10.

$10, versus the Microsoft Tax. Sounds like a sweet deal, eh?

Re:They can't stop MS..

[mpe]

The entire world can switch to Open Office and never even notice except for a tiny tiny TINY few that actually use that stupid scripting built into MS office.

But think of those poor macro virus writers :)

and then it's only going to annoy the morons that have too much time on their hands making a tool that is not designed for a certian job work (word and excel are NOT data collection apps.. and idiots use them that way with OLE)

Nor is Access a multi-user database for storing vital data. Idiots try and do that too.

If microsoft word was removed from every PC in your office and replaced with OO.o I guarentee that productivity will remain at it's current levels and nobody will really care..

Possibly productivity would be better. Since there are quite a few things which are easier to do in Star/Open Office than in Word.

EU is different from US courts

[Alain Williams]

1. 
   M$ is not an corporation from an EU country, there is no direct economic advantage to the EU of supporting M$'s illegal activities.
   
2. 
   The powerful EU officials are not directly elected by the populace; so they are not quite so easy to buy.
   
   A change of administration in one EU country is not so far reaching as the change in a single country (ie the US).
   
3. 
   The EU has deomstrated an interest in Open Source:
   EU Studies Linux Migration
   
   Individual countries have also expressed strong interest in Open Source.
   

Re:EU is different from US courts

[xutopia]

The big reason why the US law decided to be so nice with MS is because Microsoft is on of Americas leading company outside of the US.

If it were a European company hurting the US and the world the US legal jabbers would be the first one to cry for justice.

Re:EU is different from US courts

[mpe]

M$ is not an corporation from an EU country, there is no direct economic advantage to the EU of supporting M$'s illegal activities.

Probably quite an economic advantage to be rid of Microsoft. Since their net economic contribution is to suck money across the Atlantic.

The powerful EU officials are not directly elected by the populace; so they are not quite so easy to buy.

There are far more political parties in EU member states than in the US.

A change of administration in one EU country is not so far reaching as the change in a single country (ie the US).

There arn't trans-Europe political parties. Even if these were to come into existance there would probably be more than two of them. It's a lot easier to buy off political parties when you only need to do it with two.
When it comes to political parties and voting systems the US and the EU are very different.

What they should do...

[danro]

...is promote OSS in the EU administration and in the member states administration.
It would have the tripple advantage of:

1. Lower costs. (In the emedium to long run, say 2 years to break even.)
2. Inject some much needed energy in the IT sector.
3. Not take the risk of having important EU/state data held "hostage" in proprietary formats. And thus decrease the EU's dependance on a single private and unaccountable foreign entity. (Yes Bill, I am looking at you!)

...oh, yeah, and as a side effect Microsoft would loose significant marketshare in a pretty large market.
But I don't think punishment should be the top priority, I would rather see them aim for less vulnerability to future abuses of the MS monopoly.

Most likely EU response

[ites]

Will be a punative fine set high enough to hurt Microsoft.
The US response will be very significant. If the US government complains and retaliates, its intentions WRT Microsoft will be clear.
If OTOH the US government keeps quiet, as it did with the Honeywell case, MS is in for a beating in Europe.
It cannot afford to stop trading in Europe. It cannot escape a fine, since it has a financial presence in Europe.
The EU may choose to combine this with other moves, such as a well-timed announcement that Windows will be phased out in favor of Linux, Sun, and IBM products in the EU itself.
Microsoft only really has one card to play, and that is bribery and corruption.

Re:Most likely EU response

[sphealey]

The US response will be very significant. If the US government complains and retaliates, its intentions WRT Microsoft will be clear.

If OTOH the US government keeps quiet, as it did with the Honeywell case, MS is in for a beating in Europe.

It cannot afford to stop trading in Europe. It cannot escape a fine, since it has a financial presence in Europe.

OK, so the EU imposes a fine. A nice big one, say 10,000,000,000 euro.

Microsoft (1) pays the fine out of its current cash reserve of ~40,000,000,000 USD (2) the following January 1st, notifies all their customers in the United States, Asia, and South America that in order to pay the "unjust fine levied by European bureaucrats", they will have to raise the price of Office 15%.

Result: amount of fine earned back in two years, huge resentment created by Microsoft against EU.

Net benefit to EU?

sPh

Re:Most likely EU response

[Corporate Troll]

notifies all their customers in the United States, Asia, and South America that in order to pay the "unjust fine levied by European bureaucrats", they will have to raise the price of Office 15%.

Result:
a) South America switches completely to Open Source as they have already threathened so often. No more sales in South America .
b) Asia could do the same, or heck, with China developping their own OS at least China -a big market after all- could switch to something else entirely. The rest of Asia might just say? "Copyright"? We dunno what that means... and pirate happily. Result: much less sales in Asia.
c) North America: whines and bitches, and with the current economical slup they are in many companies that freeze the IT budget entirely and will continue to work with currently existing installations. Heck, many still are using Office 97 on NT4 which is perfectly viable. Net result: much less sales in North America.

Now who do you think Microsoft will hurt when they would pull a stunt like that?

Re:Most likely EU response

[sphealey]

Result:

a) South America switches completely to Open Source as they have already threathened so often. No more sales in South America .

Believe me, I wish I could agree with you. But as October_30th describes below, it doesn't seem to be happening that way. A fair number of people are somewhat upset about Microsoft's licensing policies and costs. Hundreds of millions are physically, legally, and/or psychologically locked into Microsoft products, particuarly Office. Think about law offices in North America - they are still locked into WordPerfect, 10 years after that product lost the fight. Now multiply that by several 100,000,000s.

And realistically, does the typical purchaser care if he pays $213 or $232 for that bundled copy of Office on his shiny new Dude PC? Does he even know?

I am afraid that while there may be some smoke around the idea of replacing Microsoft on the desktop, it isn't happening yet.

sPh

Re:Most likely EU response

[BollocksToThis]

Microsoft only really has one card to play, and that is bribery and corruption.

Two! Our TWO cards are bribery and corruption. And deceit. Our THREE cards are bribery, corruption, and deceit. And FUD. Among our cards to play are bribery, corruption, deceit, and FUD. And huge cash reserves... Oh, I'll come in again.

[Open invitation for pedant post to correct me]

Airbus, Eurofighter, A400M

[sphealey]

If one looks at the entire history of Airbus, or the more recent histories of the Eurofigher and the A400M projects, it isn't much of a stretch to conclude that those who direct the EU do not want their agglomeration to be dependent on the United States in any way for critical technology. And that that they are willing to pay (or have their taxpayers pay) a substantial price to avoid that dependence.

The A400M is particularly instructive: the required capabilities are available today, off-the-shelf, at lower cost, in the form of the C-17 and C-130J. But the EU continues to push the A400 project despite it being 10 years late and at least 8 years from availability. And I suspect they will get their plane, in the end.

So, does the EU plan the same process with Microsoft? Remember that those who direct the EU behind the scenes don't have the same concerns about "cost" as managers of private companies, because they impose "directives" that governments and private companies must obey. Are the recent announcements by SuSE a testing of the waters for the imposition of a Linux desktop on EU organizations?

sPh

Re:Airbus, Eurofighter, A400M

[mpe]

If one looks at the entire history of Airbus, or the more recent histories of the Eurofigher and the A400M projects, it isn't much of a stretch to conclude that those who direct the EU do not want their agglomeration to be dependent on the United States in any way for critical technology.

Doubt the US would want to make itself dependent upon the EU either.

And that that they are willing to pay (or have their taxpayers pay) a substantial price to avoid that dependence.

Hardly unique to the EU. IIRC the US Congress just decided that it would be a good idea to lease some brand new aircraft from Boeing to the USAF. Even though the USAF dosn't actually need them and it's a "buyers market" for second hand wide bodied jets right now.

The A400M is particularly instructive: the required capabilities are available today, off-the-shelf, at lower cost, in the form of the C-17 and C-130J.

Or for that matter from the Ukraine. It's more a case of not being dependent on those outside of the EU than anything else.

Stick it to them

[attobyte]

If the EU stick it to MS I might have to move.

Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies

[ninthwave]

I lived in the US for the first 28 years of my life. For the last two years have lived in Europe and your comment about the EU decisions makers not being knowledgable in the computer technical issues as the american judges is just complete bullshite.

The GM food issue isn't just a government issue it is a populace issue. If the government accepts gm food here they will have voters voting them out. The people don't want GM food at this point in time, the governments generally want the GM food business but they don't have the popular support to do it. So the ban on GM food isn't a trade issue as it is a consumer issue. Consumers won't buy food.

The banan fiasco was that, but the US has some silly trade mark games not

Check out this

Re:Muhaha!

[OrangeSpyderMan]

Fool. And what about those who worked for BeOS? Or any of those who worked for any of the companies that MS has tried to crush into oblivion (Netscape, RealAudio, SGI, Corel, Lotus, need I go on?). I don't mind you earning a living at all, but don't try and make out that MS is all about feeding children and building families, cos it ain't, it's about a handful of people getting really wealthy at the expense of a lot of other people. They only pay you at all because the haven't (yet) found a way to get wealthy without paying you. If they had, you'd know about it very quickly. I am, unfortunately, one of the people for whom MS does everything but get me home to my family early.

Re:Does the EU have power?

[jasonditz]

They could certainly try to split them up if they want, remember they managed to single handedly stop the GE-Honeywell merger.

Microsoft split in Europe

[ehiris]

Could that mean comply or take your products away from this market?

European countries have always been very tough on monopolies so a split is not out of the question.

Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies

[JanneM]

That is actually not true. Internal issues are likely not very publicized in the US, but EU has come down hard on a number of proposed mergers within EU the last few years, precisely for the risk of creating market monopolies.

As for the food issue, another poster here is quite correct that the push to ban GM foods and meat raised with antibiotics comes from the people, not from the member governments or EU itself. Another sticking point is that according to most member states' laws, all foods (from within EU or from without) must be declared where it was grown or raised, and american producers have resisted, fearing (perhaps rightly) that consumers will choose not to by american produce.

EU Court may not approve of Commision

[LeftOfCentre]

If commisioner Monti and his staff decide on sanctions against Microsoft, Microsoft will surely appeal to the European Court of Justice. Such a case could drag on for years, and furthermore the court has a recent history of overturning decisions made by the European Commision.

Re:Does the EU have power?

[Roxy]

> Could someone explain what the EU has power
> to do?
>
> Seems to me like they couldn't do much...
Check out the General Electric and Honeywell merger attempt recently. The US authorities said OK to the deal, but the EU authorities refused it on anti-competitive grounds. End of merger! You gotta love a global economy...

As well as ignorant /. readers ....

Re:Does the EU have power?

[pldms]

They can force MS to subsidise EU banana exports to the Caribbean and Latin America

We, the people of the Caribbean and Latin America have more than enough bananas. Please send no more.

Re:Muhaha!

[OrangeSpyderMan]

Did any one of the mentioned company shell out a budget to support an alternate OS such as LINUX, BSD, BeOS or even MAC

In a word, yes. Netscape was available on just about everything, BeOS obviously spent a great deal of their time supporting non-MS Windows platforms, given that they were one themselves (WTF?). Corel not only had WordPerfect running on Linux (albeit with WINE), they even had a linux distro. SGI, apart from their IRIX platform has a technology called OpenGL that is available on just about anything. What was your point again?

Re:Could care less about MS.

[October_30th]

We already have tons of killer apps for Linux

There are killer apps and then there are Killer Apps like MS Office and Adobe Photoshop. No suitable replacement exists for these two. OpenOffice will not do since it does not import/export with 100% success and the fonts (at least in Linux) look like shit. I don't see either how Gimp could replace Photoshop (color calibration, for instance) in professional work environment in years.

For an average user there cannot be "better than Windows" because that's what he/she can use already. The path of least resistance means that something must really upset these people before they even try changing the OS. And most of those who do try a different OS/Office package would quickly return when they realise that they'd have to learn a new GUI or - god forbid - think about "mounting a floppy" before accessing it (or do the recent distributions have an automatic mount that works as in Windows?).

Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies

[prisonernumber7]

The EU decisions makers are also not as knowledgable in computer technical issues as even the virtually computer-illiterate american judges.

What makes you think so, Qwerpafw? Is it that we Europeans are so much less educated than you americans are?

The EU "decision makers" as you call them have started this ordeal by ordering a study on the case. This for the sole purpose of having experts judge.


I, as an European Citizen[tm], sometimes find the views of some of you americans on the EU and our legislation quite pitiable, because people such as you in particular share uneducated views without hesitation:

The EU also has a long history of setting ridiculous tariffs, or banning, imported products from companies they don't like or that have policies the EU disagrees with.

... as shown here. The European Union was formed to guarantee the freedom of trade.

here's the deal...

[zogger]

...here's the deal. Ok, swell, 60,000 employees. Ya'all produce products, great! No probs! except..... there are 280 MILLION people just in the united States. For better or worse, "the internet" is an integral part of our ECONOMY and NATIONAL SECURITY. Using fraud, deceit, extortion, theft, etc, microsoft has become a dominant player in desktop pc's and is roughly 1/4 to 1/3 the servers out there. the stuff is INSECURE and buggy and insists on closed propietary "solutions" that make other peoples efforts (people with families and mortgages and whatnot) NOT WORK, work badly or not at all. They expose EVERYONE to ridiculously easy to use security exploits because of their pervasivness that is extant. They-the company-has a verifiable track record of IGNORING security problems until it's been rubbed in their face for extended periods of time, for example, I'll refresh you to the BO debacle, where microsoft just slap refused to acknowledge that gaping holes in their system, denied it existed, in essence, lied through their teeth, hiding behind their weight and arrogance. They put all 280 million people in the US at risk over this, and who knows what eles is out there. this nations business NEEDS the net now, there ain't no going back. it's not a luxury it's a NECESSITY. They did this so they could make more profit. They have 40 billion in the bank, like I have written before, is there any rational explanation they couldn't have instead used 1/2 (pick a big fraction or number here) of this money to actually CODE BETTER? How many programmers and engineers could they have hired for 20 billion, and given them a directive to make SURE that their products worked as advertised and were secure? I don't have an exact number, but it looks like thousands more-but they voluntarily CHOSE to accumulate more profits INSTEAD of making their products secure and functional. This is called short sighted GREED. The security of the nation's internet infrastructure should not have become hostage to this GREED, and the needs and security of the other 279,940,000 people are MORE IMPORTANT than the 60,000 microsoft employees money.

Sorry, that's the way it is. The internet is for EVERYONE, not for just MICROSOFT. They don't OWN it much as they would like to and have actively sought to. Their efforts are severly mucking up the ability of non microsoft ANYTHING to do anything, and if palladium gets mandated directly into hardware... huh?

You drive to work? You want the road you are on to only be allowed to owners of belchfire cars, and all the gas stations to only have gas that works only in belchfire cars? Oh what's that, you don't want to run a belchfire because you notice that every belchfire needs it's own full time mechanic to keep it running and not blowing up, you can't lock the doors so every time you stop and park and go into a store you come out and your stuff is stolen, the car stops working every 2 years requiring a new engine, it then takes a "new" kind of gas, and their gas comes chunky style with crud and whatnot floating in it every single new version of gas?

Too bad, see, belchfire is "the standard" now, even if you want to buy another brand of car-which you still can- soon you'll need a "passport" to use the road, you'll need to filter your gas, and well, the drivetrain is still gonna be a palladiumBelchfire drivetrain and you'll be required to only drive on belchfire tollroads and only stop at belchfire stores. Oh ya, the want to know every place you go to, this info gets sent automatically back to belchfire headquarters. Every_place_you_go. Oh, you added a non belchfire fender to replace the one that got banged up? Too bad, your car won't start now. On and on. You want that kind of "choice"?

Sure, you still got a choice, go get your non belchfire car, good luck running it soon after the new tollroads for belchfire-only are in place and all you can get is belchfire gas. We aren't 100% of the way there yet, but we are over 90% of the way there.. No belchfire car running belchfire gas, soon you'll be hitchhiking to work, not driving, or I guess you can just buy a belchfire, right? I mean it's "fair" and you got that choice.... ....the rest of us think that sucks, if you ain't getting it by now you just ain't never gonna get it.

I'm not an IT guy just a "car driver". I actually don't like belchfires, they have never worked all that well for me when I tried them out. yes I've owned and driven belchfires. Hmm, they actually don't work that well. In fact I've tried several belchfires, the "new and improved" are pretty much old belchfires with new body styles, the door locks don't work, I can't use anything but belchfire gas in them, and dang if every third tank of gas I put in it seemed to bust another part. That sorta suxs. I just find this sorta weird and annoying. So far I can struggle by with non belchfire, but I'm not looking forward to the new toll roads, and dang I'm getting tired of dodging all the broken down belchfires spread out on the road, and gee whizz, half the traffic is tow trucks towing in belchfires, all those broken belchfires are hurting the economy, which is hurting me in general, the real work delivery trucks can't hardly get through anymore, and I got to keep looking further and further for non belchfire gas.

Enough's enough, become part of the solution, stop being part of the problem. This belchfire leopard ain't changing it's spots, slap new paint on it, it's still a belchfire. They been asked nicey nice for years now, to PLEASE just change a few things abvout how they go about this business, they refused and even got nastier, they ain't changing except for MORE belchfire. Give it up, accept reality, belchfires useability is broken and is hindering everyone else. Your profits aren't worth the grief everyone is going through. It's just plain rank nasty wrong.

Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies

[Jeppe Salvesen]

GM food ban was to the best of my knowledge consumer-driven. Are you mad at the EU for being more democratic than the USA? There is a lot of discussion about this issue still going on, and there might be reversal later on. However, I would argue that GM foods need to be tested and monitored very carefully before they are used. They are potentially extremely beneficial, so it would be disaterous for the planet's future if they are widely adopted too soon (since that could both threaten the planet, or threaten the future of GM foods).

So - no - the EU is not essentially mean to US companies. However, it has high standards, sometimes higher than the US standards. When US companies face EU standards, they prefer to confront the standards as anticompetitive, rather than raise their own standards. That approach is much cheaper.

You troll, I byte

[CaptainZapp]

Basically, the EU is mean to american companies

No, the EU (or better, their competition commision) is mean to anybody who violates the law. Ask Volkswagen, Tetra Pack or Roche, which are all European companies (they are nummerous more).

Recall that the heavily subsidized Airbus was started by these people basically because they didn't like having to buy american planes.

Ah, here we go again. The Airbus consortium is a private company which received funding capital as a credit. Airbus is in no way subsidized nowadays as opposed to (e.g.) Boieng which relies heavily on defense contracts, which can be construed a subsidy in itself.

The reason why Airbus is vastly successful is that they sell better planes which are cheaper to maintain. At least that's the take of a lot of airlines, including major ones in the US.

and how europe has basically banned american GM food?

The issue is (same as with growth hormones, which are banned here) that European consumers just don't want to buy this crap. Don't you think it's a little bit odd that Novartis is heavily opposed towards GM crop in Europe and tell an entire different story in the US? In a nutshell: It's not an evil conspiracy towards the good people of the US (Novartis and Aventis are European companies after all) it's just that consumers - with the ultimate buying power - don't want this shit here; end of story.

I wouldn't count on microsoft getting off easy in europe.

If they violated the law, which is subject of an ongoing investigation, you can bank on it that they won't get off easy.

The EU decisions makers are also not as knowledgable in computer technical issues as even the virtually computer-illiterate american judges.

I'm sure you can provide us with data to back up this assessment; because otherwise: Go away, troll!

Re:Does the EU have power?

[mysticgoat]

Could someone explain what the EU has power to do?
Seems to me like they couldn't do much...

European courts could find that Microsoft was engaging in illegal practices and void part, or all, of the EULAs involved. That could create a gray market of epic proportions. It would also allow european software houses to embrace and extend the microsoft products in ways that would be illegal elsewhere.

I'm not saying that this is a likely outcome, but it is one of the things that a band of sovereign nations could do.

Requirements

[tsa]

Like with cars, they could enforce that every computer program sold must comply with certain requirements. For instance, it would be really cool if every computer program sold in the EU must come with a manual that describes every file format it uses in detail so the data generated with that program can in principle be read and used by other programs with no big problems.

Re:Requirements

[mormop]

After 3 years selling Linux, Open Office being able to open MS Office docs 100% would without a doubt cause many of my customers to dump MS and go Linux.

Reasons:

The one customer I have who has gone 100% Linux, server desktop and all rates it for:

1: Stability - No crashes in months
2: Lack of Viruses - No Viruses in over a year
3: Cost - They couldn't have afforded the network they have with MS licence fees
4: Flexibility - We can write them scripts to do pretty much anything they want.
5: Positive attitude of community to cries for help

Downsides:

1: Had to redo Publisher docs in OO.org Draw
2: Old MS Office docs come out mangled on OO.org if anything beyond text,tables and pics are used.

Messgae to the EU competition commision:

FORCE THE FILE FORMATS INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THE MONOPOLY WILL BE BROKEN!!!!!!

This includes IE5/6 extensions.

Re:Requirements

[mpe]

Downsides:
1: Had to redo Publisher docs in OO.org Draw

Publisher is a pain in the neck, about the only program which will open publisher documents with any degree of reliability is the same version of publisher they were created with.
As well as having a strange mode where it will refuse to save.

2: Old MS Office docs come out mangled on OO.org if anything beyond text,tables and pics are used.

You can't be sure that they wouldn't come out mangled with a different version of Word, sometimes even one with a different default printer setting can cause the most strange manglings.

Re:It's in Europe's interest to break M$'s monopol

[The J Kid]

Bzzt. Wrong. You're the weakest link, goodby!

Let me correct you're comment:

GWB - We're introducing tariffs on all european products imported into the states!

EU - No you're not, we'll do the same to you, and this'll hit you harder than us Muhahahahaha!

"click" (sound of button being pressed to revoke the certificates of every bit of Fritz Chip managed M$ office software in Europe)

"Ping" (Sound of business not having to buy costly MS updates ever again, and can plan out a nice move to Linux)

You were saying?

A little OT, but ...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

... I've really got to say something about this. I know it's meant to be funny, but it's not, at least to anyone who has the slightest grasp of military history.

Well, I must assume then that Commissioner Mario Monti couldn't be French then, or the EU would have surrendered by now.

The French didn't roll over in WW2. They were beaten, on the battlefield, by an army which was at the time far and away the best in the world. What the Germans did to France, they could easily have done to Russia, England, and even the US, if it hadn't been for space and cold, the English Channel, and the Atlantic Ocean, respectively. Anyone who thinks cowardice is a French national characteristic should go count the graves at Verdun.

At the very least, do a Google search on the phrase "ils ne passeront pas" before you post stuff like this.

Re:A little OT, but ...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Yeah, ok I did. It said that the Battle of Verdun was in 1916. Which means it was World War 1, not 2.

What was it you were saying again?

What I'm saying is that the character of the French people did not somehow magically deteriorate between the wars; the field commanders who were devastated by the Germans in WW2 had been young lieutenants and captains in WW1, and had fought bravely and capably at Verdun and other bloodbaths. The difference was that the quality of the German and French armies was roughly equal in WW1, while the Germans were much, much better than the French (and everyone else, at least at first) in WW2. But "better" here is a technical judgement, not a moral one.

The parable of the selfish pricks

[Anarchofascist]

Keep in mind that there are over 60 thousand employees at Microsoft. All of us have families and mortgages to pay just like you...

Reminds me of a story...

One upon a time there was a dangerous slippery cliff at the end of a road before a little village.

Every so often travellers along the road would slip, slip, slip over the cliff edge and fall to their deaths; and be collected by the village funeral director. Or they would slip, slip, slip over the edge and be badly injured; and the village doctors and nurses would tend to their wounds.

Eventually the mayor of the town announced a fence should be built at the top of the cliff, warning people of the danger.

"No!" cried the doctors and nurses. "We have families and mortgages to pay with the money we get for treating the injured!"

"No!" cried the funeral directors and morgue attendants. "We need the money from the funerals to support our families and mortgages too!"

The mayor was saddened by this reaction, but decided upon a compromise. The fence would not be built, but a sign would be erected saying "please support the local economy - jump off the cliff!"

The sign was erected, and is still there this very day.

Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies

[10Ghz]

"The EU also has a long history of setting ridiculous tariffs"

You mean something like steel tariffs?

Re:Thought - MS retaliates against an EU fine by..

[mpe]

Fine MS pull all their products out of the EU, no-one in europe can legally buy or own any microsoft products.

Microsoft have no power to say what is and isn't legal to do with their software in the EU. If they were to stop selling Windows within the EU they can't suddenly wave a magic wand to make all their software disappear.

Re:Basically, the EU is mean /Airbus

[panurge]

Actually, Airbus is not heavily subsidised. That's Boeing.

EU rules apply to Airbus. Although it had govt. start up funding this was a loan which it since has paid back. Boeing, on the other hand, is subsidised by pork barrel military aircraft production with huge margins. They really need a war with Iraq
Even so, Boeing is now less competitive simply because it makes too many designs of planes, too many cockpit types, in a part of the world where engineering and manufacturing costs are way too high. Boeing is a victim of globalisation. And, er, doesn't this sound a bit like Microsoft, except that Microsoft increasingly design and sells offshore?

Re:Does the EU have power?

[shren]

So is that 1/20th or 1/40th of Microsoft's cash reserves?

Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies

[shren]

The people don't want GM food at this point in time

Who is telling the people what they want? What groups are pushing against GMed food? I'm having trouble imagining spontaneous anti-GM sentiment.

Re:Microsoft payoffs

[bmajik]

microsoft's political lobbying here was essentially non-existant until various legal entities started persuing them.

suddenly when a bunch of fame-seeking money hoarding politicians are asking for a peice of your pie, it looks worthwhile to give them some crumbs to keep them from taking a whole slice.

Media is wrong. Microsoft will be broken up.

[ajulius]

Its amazing how the media really has misinterpreted the Microsoft settlement. If you look at the court of appeals ruling in full, you will note that the appeals court did not strike down the breakup of microsoft because that was the wrong thing to do. It refused, rightfully so because the remedy hearings were not held. Judge Kollar-Kotely made a ruling that was contradictory to the court of appeals. The settling states made sure that the 9 non settling states were not bound by the microsoft settlement. What happened unfortunately is that the Bush administration and/or Judge Kollar-Kotely played politics with the Microsoft case. It felt that because of the acts of Sept 11th, that the economy would be hurt too much by a breakup of Microsoft. If you just look at the reason we had the settlement phase inself, it mentioned the acts of sept 11th in Kollar-Kotely's own legal documents as the reason why the case needed to be resolved quickly. The legal system is not a political system and therefore, this ruling will indeed be overturned on appeal. And yes, it will be appealed by the 9 non settling states, and those states will be lead by California Attorney General Bill Lockyear. As of around November 8th or shortly thereafter, the media will then spin the case back to the way it should be going which is to a microsoft breakup.

Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies

[ninthwave]

Really I have trouble seeing acceptance of it.

It is really a question of trust.
I don't see any evidence damning GM food, nor do I see any evidence for the need of GM food.
But the companies who manufacture GM food created large publicity problems for themselves by having ad campaigns and policies that made people not trust them. And food is something where the level of trust from the end user is needed for the product to sell. If you can't trust your food sources you do look around for an alternative quickly.

Basically the question that needs to be answered is the GM qualities put into food, to better the food or to protect the interset of the company producing the seed. I won't trust a food unless the let it seed in the wild. The risk of monopolising the food chain is much worse than the risk of monopolising the software industry. Real or imagined threat it is worth safeguarding against now before it becomes an issue.

Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies

[Mac Degger]

"I'm having trouble imagining spontaneous anti-GM sentiment."

Sometimes people do think for themselves (I'm shocked at that, too ;) ). Especially farmers who see stories like certain GM crops having been windblown into a farmers field and then having to pay for copyright infringement. It's a grass-roots thing.

Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies

[shren]

Especially farmers who see stories like certain GM crops having been windblown into a farmers field and then having to pay for copyright infringement.

Who publishes the stories? Are you telling me that the mainstream media is on the side of the farmers and freedom of information instead of the corporations? That must be nice.

Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies

[shren]

But the companies who manufacture GM food created large publicity problems for themselves by having ad campaigns and policies that made people not trust them.

Who brought the shadyness in the ad campaigns and policies to light? Surely every single European didn't do his own investigation into the ads and policies. Who's spotlighting the problems? From where does the word of mouth begin?

Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies

[taxman_10m]

Or rather farmers who can't compete with redder tomatoes. It's protectionism, not that there is anything wrong with that.

Re:pre-emptive

[dpilot]

I'll make no arguments whatsoever in favor of such governments, other than current US expediency.

But when I say there are Arab governments poised to fall, they're poised to fall to Islamic fundamentalism. So take what you deplore in northern Nigeria and spread it around to more places.

Sometimes you get really tough choices: Would you rather have a corrupt secular government or a radical Islamist one? Honestly, the hope I see is in Iran. There appears to be a strong segment trying to emerge from the far side of Islamist fundamentalism, with some success. I really wish we would constructively engage that element of their country rather than label the whole place, "Axis of Evil."

Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies

[ninthwave]

Open public debate.
There is more variety of reporting and coverage here. Currently the debate was started again a few months ago by the government trying to restart the debate and try to advance the GM industry in the country. The farmers over here are against it because the biggest profit making market for farmers is organic food. So farmers can't risk cross pollination, plus the seed control of GM companies has them lose control of their product. So the farmers objected to the government's GM trials. That was enough to highlight and place it in public debate.

Re:Basically, the EU is mean to american companies

[Mac Degger]

Actually, this made to CNN...at least, the CNN we get in the Netherlands (I add that because there are significant differences in programming between countries).

Re:Damnit

[ninthwave]

But they were willing to take a chance on BeOS but they were told if they dual booted BeOS they couldn't have MS. And if they sold BeOS only machines they could lose MS. So they were telling companies to get OEM versions of software to preinstall you couldn't offer a dual boot solution and you couldn't offer another operating system on seperate machines and keep selling MS.

Which takes out the mechanism that Free Open Markets needs to prevent a monopoly, consumer choice. A computer hardware vendor offers preinstalled operating systems for its customers and for the os companies as a service. But this does not make them a selling arm of the operating system company. If microsoft set up dealerships like car manufacturers I could see this policy but the OEM relationship was not designed or implemented like this and this is to me the definition of monopolistic practice. Using your market share to force suppliers from supplying alternatives to your products.

Re:This just burns me...

[Eric Damron]

Read my post dude.... Where did I tell Microcrap how to do business??

Re:Damnit

[ninthwave]

No the constitution never guaranteed rights to corporations. The bill of rights is for individuals.

"Supreme Courts have been shaped philosophically by their members, particularly by the chief justice. To preserve the new constitutional experiment, the Marshall court sought protection for men of property who would give the nation stability and permanence. Many legal ways were found to virtually sanctify property rights and ensure federal supremacy. Article I, section 10's proscription of state violation of the obligation of contracts was interpreted to include everything from private contracts to state- granted charters of incorporation to private companies. Interstate commerce, which Congress constitutionally had authority to regulate, was interpreted to include almost every kind of commercial activity. Congress' power over it was complete in itself and could be exercised to its utmost extent, acknowledging no limitations other than those prescribed in the constitution.

In two other areas Marshall set patterns: the supremacy of federal over state courts was established clearly and permanently, and the so-called "necessary and proper" clause (the last of the powers delegated to Congress under Article I, section 8) was interpreted broadly as a positive authorization for Congress to find means to accomplish appropriate national ends.

Jacksonian Democracy placed new emphasis on freer economic competition. As it also placed a new generation of judges on the bench-headed by Roger B. Taney-the law quickly reflected this changed focus. Emphasizing, in his first opinion, that "while the rights of private property are sacredly guarded, we must not forget that the community also have rights," Chief Justice Taney went on to lay a legal basis for freedom of competition, both through encouraging local banking and commerce and by guaranteeing the right of corporations to do interstate business."

from http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/const.htm l

"60. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936)
(``a corporation is a `person' within the meaning of the equal
protection and due process of law clauses''). In First Nat'l Bank of
Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), faced with the validity of
state restraints upon expression by corporations, the Court did not
determine that corporations have First Amendment liberty rights--and
other constitutional rights--but decided instead that expression was
protected, irrespective of the speaker, because of the interests of the
listeners. See id. at 778 n.14 (reserving question). But see id. at 809,
822 (Justices White and Rehnquist dissenting) (corporations as creatures
of the state have the rights state gives them)."

from http://www.eco.freedom.org/ac92/ac92pg1578.shtml

The whole article is good because it shows court cases on the definition of corporations within the courts over time and the conflict of these decisions.

This has an overview of the 14th ammendment and its various uses which includes corporations rights and their validity or definition compared to citizens rights

http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/consti tu tion/amdt14.html

Read the constitution it is a good document but the corporation as a concept was left for the states to decide the federal courts have argued on the rights of this created citizen called corporation since.

Re:It's in Europe's interest to break M$'s monopol

[The J Kid]

and I'm afraid that until OO.org has a 100% hit rate on file compatability they won't take the leap.

Ah, but Open Source has all the time in the world, and anyway business (who'll have Office 97/2000 ), don't want to change over right now anyway, so there is more time to get OO.org up to scratch.

Goodbye has an 'e' on the end. Just like Dan Quale's potato ;)

Typng is fr wimps. :P

And theirs no buzzer on the weakest link, just that well known winker Anne Robinson.

I got the bzzt from 'Have I got news for you' also on BBC..

PS. I'm from Britain too and yes, we are european too. Get used to it.

Re:Does the EU have power?

[albanac]

Difference between "Invalid: MS will lose if they take you to court for breaking it" and "Illegal: the EU will pull your product from the shelves unless you alter this". Which is what I believe was discussed.

~cHris

Re:This just burns me...

[Eric Damron]

MS broke the law. It was proven in court and they were found guilty. These measures are supposed to correct Microsoft's ILLEGAL behavior.

I do not approve of these measures because as you said, they are not strong enough to deter Microsoft from it abhorrent behavior. Personally I feel that they should be broken up into at least three different companies.

It is not too much to expect companies to obey the law and punish those that don't.

Re:Damnit

[ninthwave]

Your metaphor is wrong with the way law works.

If a family were a corporation the individuals in the family would have rights and the family as a unit would be a legal entity with rights.

So my son has rights as an individual, my wife has rights as an individual but any action they do when acting as part of the family is blanketed by the family entity.

Re:This just burns me...

[Eric Damron]

The antitrust laws are there to prevent monopolies like Microsoft from using unfair advantages to prevent others from taking market share and also to extend there power into other spheres of business using the same unfair advantages. If we allow monopolies to use their position to crush and stifle competition then soon we will all be hostages to a single monopoly in each business.

That would destroy free market checks and balances. If I am the only one who produces a product that you need then I can charge whatever I want. I would have no real competition to drive down the price and depending on how badly you need the product that I produce I can bully you into paying whatever I want. 'Here is the medicine you need to save your life.... $25,000.00.... pay or die...'

'Here is my OS, $650.00.... pay or don't use a computer... And remember that we have bullied all of the hardware manufacturers into making hardware that will only run our OS.... '

Microsoft broke the law and it is right that we maintain free market balance by punishing them.

Re:Damnit

[ninthwave]

But the family unit doesn't get protection from the actions of individuals.

By creating an entity called a corporation, you are creating an entity to exist within a scope of law for that entity. You seperate the individuals from legal responsibility of the actions of the company, you seperate the individual from debt liability from the company, because the individuals are protected this entity has to have different laws to control its rights and civic responsibilities. Some of those laws include making the individuals accountable, some include fining the institution for crimes committed by the entity, mainly because a corporation can not be put in prison so it must be fined instead. So because a corporation has protection of the individuals within the corporation you have to have different rules to make sure the corporation is not used as a tool for illegal activity or that the corporation does not use these rules and economic power to bypass the rights of individuals. The consumer is a powerful unit but the market determines what the consumer can choice between when the market is controlled the consumer loses power, because choices are removed. Anti monopoly law is to make sure the market has this choice so the market is a free market and the consumer has a choice that will check the power of a corporation.

It isn't solid law and the concepts are vague but it is better than unchecked corporate control.
All you need to do is look in the history of industrial cities around early twentieth century factories to see how without protection of choice in the market place, how this system did affect the rights of people. A corporation in my opinion is a lesser entity than an individual, its rights should be below that of an individual.

Re:This just burns me...

[Eric Damron]

"If you say pay $650 or don't use a computer, another competitor will develop a competing product and charge $100."

You miss the point.

Microsoft controls 95% of the desktop market give or take a point or two. They have already gone to major manufacturer's of computers like Dell, Compaq etc. and told them that if they shipped ANY of there computers with any non-Microsoft OS that they would have to pay more for the EVERY Microsoft OS that they ship.

If I developed my own OS and told Compaq that, they would laugh in my face and tell me to get the hell out. However, being that Microsoft is a monopoly it would be a big impact if Compaq had to charge more than its competitors to ship Computers with a Microsoft OS. So, when Microsoft flexes it's monopoly muscle in this (and other) unfair way(s) the free market isn't truly a free market anymore.

If we have a truly free market Linux will eventually displace Microsoft's OS and Microsoft knows it.

"As for our medicine thing, it's fine to charge $25000, if their are a limited number of cases and if it costs $20,000,000 to research. That's why we have insurance."

I didn't say that there are a limited number of cases or that the research cost was high. If a single unregulated drug company has a monopoly on a drug they can financially rape the public. And no, no, no, this is NOT what insurance is for!

Insurance isn't there so that it can pay for artificially inflated prices! Everyone ends up paying through higher premiums and co-pays. Insurance isn't a free ride.

Re:This just burns me...

[Eric Damron]

"MS shouldn't be forced to help their competition. If they don't want to sell to anyone because they're also selling competing products, that's they're right."

Wrong! That's not their right and if fact it is BREAKING THE F***ING LAW!! I don't give a shit if you agree or not it IS the law! If you don't like it then work to have the god damn law changed!!

"No one's stopping an OEM from selling non-MS products only. The burden needs to be on the new OS to convince someone it's worth the venture."

If an OEM like Compaq decided to sell only non-Microsoft products they would go out of business and THAT IS STOPPING THEM. It has nothing to do with the quality of the product it ONLY has to do with Microsoft's monopoly. It is ILLEGAL for Microsoft to use its monopoly position to dictate what another company should sell. And before you spew out the "nobody held a gun to their head" bullshit let me point out that holding a gun to someone's head is not the only way that Microsoft can do real damage to others. Putting a company into a position where they cannot compete does real, tangible damage that goes beyond "Helping one's competition." Which is why it is ILEGAL!

I can see that, the government can see that. Hell, you may be the only one on the entire flippin' planet that can't see that!

"If it weren't for the drug company there would be NO cure and your only option would be to die. By regulating the price, you kill incentive to develop new drugs, and then you have no new drugs."

Bullshit! You only regulate if you must in order to prevent the most powerful companies to take unfair advantage of their position because of their rampant greed!

"Better to let a company charge $25000 if they want. It's their creation. You have no right to take it from them or tell them how they can sell it. To do so is immoral."

Bullshit! If a company is in a position to extort cash because you don't have alternatives (Like in the case of monopolies) then to allow them to do so is immoral. As far as having a right to regulate companies WE DO HAVE THAT RIGHT! It is the LAW. If you don't like it the work to get the flippin' law changed. Don't cry on my shoulder because we don't see things the same way!

"I never claimed insurance was a free ride, but drug development isn't either."

Obviously development isn't cheap and that's why drug companies get patents so that they can have an artificial monopoly for a period of time that will allow them to recoup their expenses and make a profit. That has nothing to do with allowing them to use that monopoly to rape the public.

Look you obviously are incapable of seeing the injustice that monopolies can inflict on the public and I really don't have any more time to explain this position. I understand what you are saying and I think that it is bullshit. (As do most people and especially the ones who drafted the laws concerning monopoly behavior.)