Slashdot Mirror
EU Considering Another MS Antitrust Suit
mesozoic writes "Yahoo! News is reporting that the European Union is considering *another* antitrust suit against Microsoft, this time having to do with anticompetitive behavior in the market for mobile phone software. While I haven't seen any signs Microsoft is going to dominate the industry here in the States, cell phones are a much bigger deal in Europe, so I can understand why they'd be nervous."
It seems as if the DOJ backed off M$ as soon as G.W. Bush took office, leading to a rather ineffective settlement. It seems as if they intend on violating anti-trust laws yet again, and then trying to claim that they already settled it the first time.
Microsoft is to anti-trust law as Iraq is to dearmming resolutions?
So Microsoft is essentially forbidden to expand the scope of their business in any way? If you deny them the right to diversify their business, then you should not be suprised when they tenaciously cling to their OS all the more. To argue that the production of a phone that runs Windows CE unfairly presses the advantage provided by their other operating systems is ridiculous.
however, I think this can be a healty attitude to take towards MS. It informs MS (and anyone else who may be getting any ideas) that their practices will NOT go unchecked. There is however a fine line between this attitude and out right "picking" on them. With thier track record though, it is hard for MS to claim that they are being picked on unfairly.
The EU competition regulator is concerned that Microsoft might take over the market for mobile phone software, according to a senior adviser to the European Commission. "Mobile phones are a very important market in Europe. The Commission is worried that Microsoft might take advantage of the strength of Windows in order to dominate in mobile phones," he said Uh, so they are suing because MS might do something? I forget what the legal term for this is, but I think this guy has a big stick up his ass. Besides, Stinger has 0 market penetration right now. Everyone is on just a big kick MSs ass because they are an easy target kick.
Just having the suits change the environment enough so that alternatives can survive. While MS has been under the Antitrust gun, it hasn't been able to crush competitors with quite the same abandon. If this keeps up long enough, there may well be a viable MS alternative shipping in volume from major manufacturers in the forseeable future.
The existing case against Microsoft comprises two separate investigations. The first was sparked by a complaint about Microsoft's abuse of its Windows operating system monopoly by rival software maker Sun Microsystems Inc. The second part, focused specifically on Win2K, was initiated by the Commission.
Mod that as funny, it sure isn't informative.
The goal isn't to cripple Microsoft, just to make it play by the rules.
We're talking here about going after Microsoft for a different set of violations in a different country. They get no slack in that case.
THE GOOD HUMOR MAN CAN ONLY BE PUSHED SO FAR
Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 2F18
Can someone PLEASE explain to me what the deal is with 'smartphones'?
/. every 5 minutes isn't necessary for geek survival.
I have a nokia 5160, and I can place calls with it. I can receive calls with it. I can receive text messages too. Shit, I can play nibbles on the damn thing!
WHY would I want more than that on a phone?
I've got a computer for internet access - it stays at my desk. Contrary to popular belief, checking
I have heard the excuse that some poeple want to check and reply to their email on the go - that's what a secretary is for. If not a secretary, there are a plethora of alternatives - Laptops, Wireless/Wired palm/pocketce devices and internet booths spring to mind.
Convince me we need smartphones. I just don't see it.
Desperation is a stinky cologne
Sounds like the EU is trying to protect the current cell phone sw makers. They're the ones being anticompetitve. I don't see how MS's pc market gives them any leverage with cell phone makers and cell phone networks.
Vote for Pedro
Remember, it's not a crime to have a monopoly.
Yes, but Microsoft has already been convicted in the US for using their monopoly power to stifle competition. I think that this conviction in itself makes news of similar suits in other juristictions and other technologies quite understandable.
Personally I feel as a computer professional that Microsoft's monopoly has done a lot to prevent new ideas and technologies from reaching the market, and has in fact hurt the IT industry considerably. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to me that the remidies that are in place are sufficient to reverse this damage.
Perhaps the EU will be more succesful at coming up with a solution. I hope so.
I don't know if the EU has the muscle to stop the freight train that is .NET. With "Smart Clients" being one of the four pillars of their new platform, failure to gain market share in the luctrative European mobile phone/computing market would be a disaster for their future business plans. .NET platform may have quite a fight ahead of them.
However, with the reluctance of companies to participate in the "Safe Harbor" provisions that enable a firm to side-step the privacy laws in Europe, and the general move of European governments toward Open-Source solutions, Microsoft and the
So...pass the popcorn and step up to get good ring-side seats to this one in the next few years.
Microsoft has virtually no real penetration in the mobile phone/PDA market; Nokia/Symbian are currently destroying it. Hell, even Sendo (in which MS has a substantial stake) just withdrew their MS based phone after a couple of weeks in favour of the open source Nokia solution. It isn't even *likely* to fly.
It's far more likely that Monti (EU Competition Commissioner) is worried that the current *real* antitrust investigation into Microsoft will either not find anything or that the remedies will be knocked over in court (like most of his cases) - and he wants to have his distraction tactics ready. This way at least he can say "Forget about *that* one, we've got a whole new case against Microsoft to spend years and millions on!" and Slashdot can happily argue about that one till it looks like falling; when he can start a new investigation, probably into Microsoft failing efforts to dominate the games console market. And then there's the effort (with Media Centre) to take over the TV and stereo market.....
How can you prosecute a company for antitrust violations when it doesn't even have a majority of the market share?
Repeal the DMCA!
First of all in the news it says that based on the suspicion that the software giant is trying to leverage its dominance of PC operating systems into the market for mobile phone software which basically means that there is a suspicion and there is no hardcore proof. The news does (actually can) not explain which Microsoft policies cause Microsoft to use its strength on Windows platform to take over the mobile phone market. The only credible issue is the "Titanium" software, but it is not the job of Microsoft to provide the best integration for Windows with competitors' devices. Competitiors has to spend time to build quality software, instead of complaining. This is a software engineering problem. If you can not write better software than Microsoft, then don't complain.
There is also a claim by the lawyer (anonymous coward) that Microsoft is threatining mobile phone operators, but he/she fell short of explaining how, when, which? If you think about it you also realize that Microsoft can not threaten neither mobile phone operators not manufacturers. Tell me how Microsoft can threaten Nokia? Nokia does not sell PCs. There is no way Microsoft can threaten these companies.
To sum up again this news is totally bogus, it is for our amusement, making up stories about Microsoft and laughing at each others' jokes. Have fun
"While I haven't seen any signs Microsoft is going to dominate the industry here in the States.."
Well, did you see any signs when Microsoft started a browser war against the de facto standard Netscape browser back in the old days? I mean, who would have believed back then that Microsoft would be able to beat Netscape in browser war?
----
Whoops. It's easy to change the software on your PC, eh? Then by your definition (I assume under software you included operating systems, correct?), Microsoft doesn't actually -have- a monopoly in the PC software market? In fact, aren't you suggesting that the software manufacturers for mobile phones have -more- of a monopoly?
Pretty big hole in your little argument there.
Is Microsoft in this business (they label it "CE/Mobility") because they want to make a profit in this business? Or are they taking advantage of other strengths of their company to dominate the new sector?
Microsoft's recent Form 10-Q shows that, between June 1 and September 30, 2002, Microsoft lost $33M (U.S. dollars) on revenues of $17M in this part of their business. (Look for the second occurance of "CE/Mobility", the one under "Three months ending September 30" and "2002," about halfway down the page.) In other words, they spent a total of about $50M (in three months!), and lost almost three dollars for every dollar they spent.
This isn't proof by any means; but it's one interesting test in trying to decide Microsoft's corporate intentions.
P.S.: This rate may represent Microsoft scaling back their efforts! From June 1 to September 30, 2001, Microsoft lost $48M on revenues of $14M; so a total expenditure of $62M, or more than four dollars for ever one they made. Remember that Windows CE devices started shipping in early 1997; this is not a new business for them, but one that's almost six years old.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
what about just leaving them alone and trying to sell their products?
I love MS as much as the next guy here on /., and while I partially agree with this suit, the market still has the final word to say.
I submitted a while ago a story about Microsoft's attempt at interactive TV here in Portugal. It got rejected, but the point here is that it failed. Microsoft's testbed for iTV failed because the problems we have today with windows translated to the same problems with the MS iTV's software. The service was also a bit expensive (whether or not related to the MS tax), the set top box crashed a lot, and few saw the benefits of iTV. We are a bit behind europe in smoe areas, but in technology we are at about the same level so it was not a people's problem. (in a country of 10 million there are about 7 or 8 million cellphones; our ATM system allows for any kind of bank operation in any bank's ATM from withdrawing money to buying train tickets to paying the telephone or electricity bills; we have a nation-wide non-stop automated system for paying the highway toll).
MS failed because of the product they were trying to sell wasn't what the people wanted, they wanted to make us use the TV as a computer but we didn't. When they come with this cellphoneOS, let the people decide. Say what you want about mobile internet, games, messengers, digital built-in cameras, and all the rest of the crap, that while make cool geek toys (which I like to play with), the vast majority just wants to call someone.
And it's not going to be easy to de-throne the appeal Nokia has.
Microsoft may be the monopoly in computer operating systems and Office suits, but in other ponds they are the little fish.
The point isn't that microsoft is moving into another market, they are allowed to do that. But they aren't allowed to use the monopoly they have to give them leverage in that market. They could do this with windows if it wasn't a monopoly, but it is, so if they tightly integrate their cell phone software with the OS. MORE SPECIFICALLY IF THEY ADD EXTENSIONS TO THEIR EMAIL SOFTWARE THAT DEGRADES THE QUALITY OF CONNECTIVITY TO OTHER CELL SYSTEMS. That is anti-competative and illegal. Microsoft can expand into new areas, but they can't intentionally use propriatary standards that block out the competition on the windows side, or the other monopolies they've already illegally used their windows monopoly to gain. No they don't have a monopoly in the cell phone market yet, the whole point is to PREVENT it from happening by stopping this illegal practice BEFORE it's too late.
All the EU wants to do is tweak the Yanks' noses and two protect their own software industry. If the EU felt that strongly about encroachment they would treat it like any other trade dispute and threaten to ennact sanctions, tarriffs and embargoes. But they don't which means they really aren't interested in market equilibrium, they are interested in finessing the creation of legislation through their court system and bypassing normal EU trade processes.
Screw the EU - they have an 80 page regulation for the steering wheel on a bus. And they think MS is bad?
Where has anyone said Microsoft can not be in the business? No where. No one has said that.
The only restriction is that Microsoft must act legally and NOT illegally.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
All this talk about "the market should sort it out", "lets boycott", "you are wasting your time/energy/whatever", "why do it" etc.
You have given up on upholding (antitrust) laws and correcting unfair competition then? Do you mean that the law should be upheld only against weak infractors?
Do I detect an opportunistic attitude and a lack of backbone here?
Last week I posted a response to the article on the Council of Europe's anti-racism guidelines. Since that article generated many heated (and somewhat lacking in knowledge and insight) posts on the EU (being communist, Nazi, Socialist, ant-US, -insert common American perception of Europe here- ) although the Council of Europe has nothing to do with the EU, I think I should expand on that subject.
While the quality and hindsight of most of the anti-EU posts suggest both an almost complete lack of knowledge of what the EU or it's member states are, the posts sugesting protectionism might very well have a point. As we all know, when it comes down to business, the first priority of any government wishing to remain in power in the next elections is to ensure that jobs are held, the local industry does well and that, if possible, there is a net inflow of money into the state/area/country/region. This means that in practice the US President as well as the EU Commision will backstab one another and reneg on all treaties if needs be in order to ensure the wellfare of the own economies. The same applies to Russia, China, India and most other places, including Iraq when it comes to oil.
Why do you think so many non-US countries' governments are switching or considering to switch to Linux or other alternatives? So that, for the first time in a long time, there will actually be growth in the local software industry. Microsoft has an enormous lock on software in the developed world and there is a net outflow of money from those countries to the US, since MS is an American company. Nokia and partly also Ericsson, have the major part of the cell-phone market in Europe and are European companies. I very much doubt that anyone who has any say whatsoever in the EU wants another MS monpoly in another market. The Desktop PC market domination by MS is bad enough, given MS's behaviour.
I think the EU Commision will do anything legally within it's power in order to prevent MS gaining a monopoly there as well. MS has a lot of political influence in the US (see the recent trial outcome) and in developing countries where it can (and has done in Peru, South Africa and India) influence politicians with MS pocket change; MS loses more money on the XBox than it invested in South Africa, but the sum was enormous for South African standards. Your US President, GW Bush, did the same to the EU and others with his Steel import tarifs.
This is the EU's answer.