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."

Comments

why waste the money?

[Botchka]

fighting M$ at every little turn. What ever happened to boycotting. Wouldn't the lawsuit fees be better spent switching from M$ products?

Re:why waste the money?

[parnold]

the point is that you can't boycott a monoploy. if microsoft gains market dominance in mobile phones there shall be no choice. unlike pc's its quite hard to change the software on your phone. a antitrust cast may be the only way to stop this.

Re:why waste the money?

[nomadic]

What ever happened to boycotting.

It doesn't work.

Wouldn't the lawsuit fees be better spent switching from M$ products?

No.

Re:why waste the money?

[RebelTycoon]

This should be marked as a Troll... The cost of lawsuits in this case is MUCH cheaper then switching off of MS...

Re:why waste the money?

[Abnormal Coward]

I work for a company in the mobile phone market, based in the UK, and theres no chance of M$ getting anywhere fast in the mobile market:))

Re:why waste the money?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:why waste the money?

[pcardoso]

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.

Re:why waste the money?

[aapl jedi]

As M$ would probably point out, group boycotts are illegal under American antitrust law.

Re:why waste the money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, that's Portugal and that was really a nice market but what about Microsoft's role in the new economies of eastern europe and the balkans where they were literally buying their way to government contracts?

It's the old Microsoft gift to equip all government computers with their suites in return they get lifelong dependants end licenses.
Many countries like Yugoslavia, Slovenia, Bulgarian, Byelorussia, Ukraine and so on had
a very pro Linux technical reports yet all you have to do in many of these countries is a carefully placed incentive (Like some minister's son's new company will be first licensed to to service Microsoft products and wont push for individial MSCE training certificates.)

Im happy that some backwards country like Namibia could say no to the Redmond trojan horse but many inhabutants of other countries are getting pushed into Microsoft dependance because of Microsoft's business practices and not the product
(said the man who still owns a Betamax and a Mac.)

z

Re:why waste the money?

[catman]

illegal under American antitrust law

So? Did you read the article, or even the header?

Re:why waste the money?

[jez9999]

we have a nation-wide non-stop automated system for paying the highway toll

Heh. Technology at its worst.

Re:why waste the money?

[jez9999]

The European Commission is not interested in competition, it's interested in exactly the opposite: protecting EU industry from American/Far-East competition.

Frankly, what else is it meant to do when the American government is protecting ITS firms? You can't sit back and let yours die. What needs to happen is the US government needs to get a clue!

Re:why waste the money?

[Ola PeK]

That is not the fault of the technology. Politicians decide to have nationwide road-tolls, technology just provides an easy means of collecting them. Having five different, incompatible systems suck!

Re:why waste the money?

[Datafage]

No, pretty big hole in your head. The DoJ STATED that Microsoft could have a monopoly with less than 100% of the market, as it only required enough to have monopoly-level market power. On top of that, what the poster meant, I believe, was that the PROCESS of installing a new OS is fairly trivial for the open PC platform, and much less so for a mobile phone.

Re:why waste the money?

[chthon]

The EU really does its best to remove monopolies. This succeeded with the telecoms, now with the power. As a matter of fact, because of deregulation and so on, it is an American company which now runs the cable provider Telenet in Belgium. Before that it was a government controlled institution.

Re:why waste the money?

[Vesuvius_2]

nomadic, I'm see someone else that's still sane.

Re:why waste the money?

[bramblesx]

ms great company why does everyone pick??

microsoft phone

[Anonymous Coward]

the relation to microsoft and the cellphone is Microsoft Smartphone, as seen here.

Basically its an small OS that runs on the cellphone so the user has MS messaging, etc. I'm sure Microsoft makes it plenty anti-competitive somehow. They're good at that.

Innovation

[Tyler Eaves]

Hey, anything that directs resources away from "innovation" is a good thing, right?

Re:Innovation

[LostCluster]

Mod that as funny, it sure isn't informative.

The goal isn't to cripple Microsoft, just to make it play by the rules.

MS doesnt even has a marketshare

[KeyserDK]

This doesnt make sense to me. I havent even seen a MS mobile phone on sale.

Besides everybody already has a mobile phone, that has nothing to do with MS. It's not like there isnt any real competition.

Re:MS doesnt even has a marketshare

[RebelTycoon]

so let me guess, you've had the same cell phone since you first went cellular...

Eventually you might only have a choice of MS SmartTalks, or a ST OS... which would kill ICQ, AOL Messenger, and other pieces of software yet to be created.

Re:MS doesnt even has a marketshare

[h_haller]

In Europe there are smartphones based on MS PocketPC. Some cellphones (e.g. Sony CMD-J7) also use MS Mobile Explorer for Web Browsing (which is kind of cool, because it attempts to display HTML, not only WML).

Besides, if you read the article, you will see that it talks about "suspicions" about Microsoft's plans, not its current market share in mobile phones. The EU fears that mobile phones will become like IBM-compatible PCs - commodity hardware all running the same software. Which, given Microsoft's resources and competitive strategies, seems like a very likely scenario.

Re:MS doesnt even has a marketshare

[bashibazouk]

And just how many MS branded computers are on the market (not including Xbox)?

Re:MS doesnt even has a marketshare

[jpmorgan]

The EU fears that mobile phones will become like IBM-compatible PCs - commodity hardware all running the same software.

You mean comparatively cheap, commodity items? I can imagine how that might trouble a number of the large European mobile phone manafacturers! Got to keep the systems proprietary, custom, and expensive. Won't please someone think of the profit margins...err...children!

Perhaps the recent American innovation of a corporation's right to profit has been taken up by the EU too?

Re:MS doesnt even has a marketshare

[jez9999]

You mean comparatively cheap, commodity items?

Just like it's cheap to buy a computer now with WinXP and OfficeXP pre-installed?

Re:MS doesnt even has a marketshare

[mpe]

The EU should just subsidize their cell phone software companies with government money like they do with Airbus for the development of planes. That tactic certainly helped to make Airbus able to take business away from Boeing.
How long the US will let that continue to happen before either stopping the practice in the EU or doing the same for Boeing we don't know.

The US government pours money into Boeing, typically via The Pentagon. Are you saying that the same is happening with Microsoft.

Re:MS doesnt even has a marketshare

[jez9999]

Well I guess I must be smoking some 'serious crack' then. Because I think that the software cost could and would be massively cut if Microsoft didn't have the monopoly leverage they do have.

And BTW you misinterpreted what I said. I questioned whether it was cheap to get a modern PC with WinXP and OfficeXP pre-installed - I didn't say it was POSSIBLE (legally).

Will Microsoft Ever Stop?

[LostCluster]

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?

Re:Will Microsoft Ever Stop?

[runenfool]

They may just try to claim that they settled the antitrust complaints, but the EU (besides being a completely separate entity) is going after them for different infractions than the US was.

I think there are a lot of countries around the world that are nervous about the behavior that came out during the antitrust trial. They see Microsoft gaining more and more political power in the US (the trial taught Microsoft that its stupid for a company of their size to not 'play the game' in Washington) and they are worried that a major part of their infrastructure will be dominated by a US company. It goes to countries feeling threatened so much by Microsoft that they will go so far as to spend money to develop alternatives, or mandate use of open source, or in this case - they bring antitrust laws to bear on the company. To not take Microsoft as a serious threat to their countries would be folly, as MS could simply double licensing fees at will and cause government expenses to skyrocket (or possibly even more nefarious things like NSA backdoors or security holes causing massive problems for governments).

In the end hopefully this will simply serve to give us a more balanced computing environment. I would hate for Microsoft to simply be exterminated - thats not what we need no matter how bad the company has been. What we need is healthy vibrant competition in the computing marketplace - at all levels including the ones that are currently dominated by Microsoft.

Re:Will Microsoft Ever Stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

They started backing off about a year before Bush took office (ie Clinton, mr tell the SEC to do nothing about the rampent rip off going on in the market). They just were not paying the political tax (ie bushals of money into the coffers of political campaigns). They went from a few thousand dollars a year to one of the TOP contributers in little under a year. If there is something senators, congressmen, and presidents listen to is the contributers....

Microsoft can and does make mistakes. But busnesswise they rarely make the same one twice. Their software on the other hand they make MANY mistakes. But we keep buying it. So why should they BOTHER to fix the stuff?

Apparently MS didnt pay enough political slush fund money to bribe, YES BRIBE, the EU into not going after them. You will see them go from a ho-hum contributer in the EU to a TOP one. They will bribe their way out of it. You will see another inefecive lawsuit and a LARGE waste of EU's taxpayers money. All the while the EU people will pat themselves on the back for going after MS when the US didnt do such a good job. Sounds like an expensive pat on the back to me...

The people they should be going after are the movie companies for price fixing, or regions for DVD's. But the movie companies been paying the bribe for years...

Throwing stones is easy. Putting a pain of glass back together is NOT.

Re:Will Microsoft Ever Stop?

[aapl jedi]

I'm not familiar with the SEC action you're referring to, but the SEC has nothing to do with antitrust law.

Nor do I accept your premise that antitrust law was used to reward or punish M$ for giving or failing to give campaign contributions to either party.

The Clinton Administration prosecuted M$ because they believed antitrust law promotes and protects competition. The Clinton Administration's prosecution became more, not less, vigorous with time.

The Cheney Administration believes in the "Chicago School" of antitrust which - after you peel away the rhetoric - holds that the purpose of antitrust law is to increase the net wealth of society. (Actually, I believe Cheney, Bush et al. are plutocrats, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here.)

M$ clearly engaged in anticompetitive behavior, but it is not clear that the net wealth of society has been reduced. Consequently, Cheney's people don't believe the M$ did anything wrong, even if the conduct was illegal.

Re:Will Microsoft Ever Stop?

[jez9999]

Actually, I think that for Microsoft to be exterminated from the OS market would be a good thing, if replaced by a GPL OS. With a GPLed OS, there can never be any secret backdoors or unfair advantges for one company developing for the OS, as the sourcecode is open to everyone. Let MS compete when it comes to applications based on that opensource OS.

It may seem unimportant,

[Chris_Stankowitz]

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.

Re:It may seem unimportant,

[Idarubicin]

...their practices will NOT go unchecked.

In Europe, at least. In the United States, they are still welcome to roll over any competition however they may please, subsidizing their massively unprofitable divisions with monopoly money (the real stuff, not the multicoloured paper you get from Parker Brothers) from Office and Windows.

Uh.

[Gaijin42]

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.

Re:Uh.

[nutshell42]

From what I read on heise.de competitors have complained that Microsoft might use their desktop-monopoly to get an unfair advantage on the cellphone market (the example of Exchange only working with their cellphone-OS was brought up).

Now the Commission is checking that and perhaps will consider it when determing restrictions if m$ is found guilty in the other antitrust suit - which sounds reasonable imho.

jm2

Re:Uh.

[LostCluster]

I forget what the legal term for this is Preemptive injunction.

Re:Uh.

[nrosier]

Uh, so they are suing because MS might do something?

They arent suing anybody.. it's an investigation. They got some complaints from competitors (Nokia e.a.) that MS is using their standard tactics of bullying, screwing with standards etc. and they're investigating. You'd rather that they wait untill MS extually succeeds in pulling the same thing they did with the browser and then get this joke of a sentence they got from the last trial?

Re:Uh.

[mpe]

Uh, so they are suing because MS might do something?

As opposed to the US wanting to bomb Iraq because of some weapons Iraq might have. I'm sure Microsoft would rather be sued than bombed...

I forget what the legal term for this is, but I think this guy has a big stick up his ass.

Maybe he can compare sticks with GW Bush :)

Besides, Stinger has 0 market penetration right now.

Who wants a mobile phone named after a man portable SAM or a device police use to stop cars?
Maybe we should wait until things are much too late and things are crippled to SMS viruses. Thing is that people won't just accept this, because they'll know how it didn't happen in 2002.

Re:Uh.

[mpe]

This might seem somewhat strange from an american point of view. There it seems more like letting them do the mess and clean up afterwards.

The last bit probably should be more like "asking them nicely, hoping they will clean up the mess. If they don't ask them nicely again".

*sigh*

[lce]

Why can't Bill and his droined employees just keep their dicks out of everything. Pretty soon, they'll have everything, then they'll go after the dildo market(assuming in the future their will be some mini-os in dildos :) )

Re:*sigh*

[h0tblack]

Na, Apple cornered that a long time ago with the iBrator ;) Damn sight more user-friendly than any stimulus M$ could up with.... I mean, erm, or so I'm told.

Re:*sigh*

[Alien Being]

dilDOS

The super-responsive goodtime OS.

Supports a wide and long variety of hardware

Takes full advantage of all available RAM

Unmatched IO throughput

Networking capabilities offer potential for exciting LAN parties. Remote probing option.

Builtin virus protection, software only.

Re:*sigh*

[mijok]

hah! I didn't come to think of that when I thought about what the future holds for us if MS expands to other markets. I already realized that we'll all soon have to:
- accept EBLA (End Breather License Agreement) to breath MS-Air, accepted by inhaling
- accept EELA (End Eater License Agreement to eat MS-Food, accepted by chewing it
- accept EWLA (End Wearer License Agreement) to wear MS-Clothes, accepted by putting them on (and yes the only fashion will be clothes with license text all over them)
but now you just made me realize that there will be EPLA (End Penetrator License Agreement) as well, accepted by... (guess!!!)

good.

[emarkp]

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.

And in other news...

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

Microsoft is considering another large donation of money to EU member countries and selective individuals to keep them fat and happy.

And in furture news, "Microsoft Found 'Not-Guilty' by EU."

Re:And in other news...

[LeftOfCentre]

The big decisions are taken by the member states and the parliament, the commision has the power only to promise initiatives and a few other powers.

Don't hold your breath

[Anonymous Coward]

Any new probe into Microsoft is unlikely to begin until the existing case is closed. It is highly unlikely the new concerns about mobile phones would be added to the existing case, as this would delay that ruling.

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.

just when we thought it couldn't get worse...

[metal_llama]

Does this mean that my phone will have more static? I didn't realize that was possible. Even worse, If Microsoft gets hold of the mobile market, they may introduce a service similiar to Nextel's direct connect, only worse, which means we'll have exponentially more people screaming their private conversations for all to hear. Oh, joy.

Re:just when we thought it couldn't get worse...

[Openadvocate]

Static? hmm I have never had any noise in my cell phone, but I have also only had GSM phones since I got the first one, uuh 4-5 years ago i think.

UK

[unit01]

I'm from uk and I know there is a lot of unemployment in the IT area. So maybe a home grown operating system might be what is needed. It could be based on linux or it could be completly different.

Re:UK

[squiggleslash]

Yeah. Maybe an established UK IT company, familiar with pocketable computer systems, could develop an operating system particularly suited to running on mobile phones and other pocketable devices...

reason for suit

[Slashdotess]

The reason for the lawsuit is clearly seen in the article:

The .Net initiative attempts to link Internet users to the Microsoft system by giving them a "passport" that authenticates their identity and gives them access to Microsoft Web sites for e-mail and online games, and e-commerce sites that conform to the .Net idea.

This phone uses passport to authenticate users on phone-based services. This allows business users, etc to easily tie their mobile phones to their central .NET servers, further binding them to MS software, etc.

My question is, where's the Linux based Open Source phones? ;)

Re:reason for suit

[LostCluster]

Remember, it's not a crime to have a monopoly.

Anti-trust law kicks in when you have a monopoly, and then try to use the advantages of that monopoly product to try to force your way into a marketplace where you're supposed to compete. You have to face your competitors on a level playing field.

Re:reason for suit

[caluml]

Check out this phone - it looks pretty good.

Hardware: * 206MHz Intel SA-1110 StrongARM system-on-chip processor * Memory: 32MB or 64MB RAM; 32MB Flash * 16-Bit color, 320x240 pixel LCD with backlight * RS232 serial port * USB port, configurable as either 'host' or 'client' device * Bluetooth wireless LAN * GSM/GPRS cellular communication * Biometric fingerprint sensor * Size: 5.4 x 3.1 x 0.8 in. * Weight: 8.8 oz. Software: * Linux operating system (2.4.x kernel) * GUI environment and PDA app suite based on Trolltech Qtopia and Opera browser * IPSec VPN protocol & security algorithms * IBM DB2E database and Websphere software * Power management to extend battery life

Re:reason for suit

[the eric conspiracy]

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.

Re:reason for suit

[tsa]

That is really cool, a 320x240 pixel screen! I can simulate my C-64 on it! Who could have dreamt that up in the '80s...

anti M$ is good no matter what

[A Vengrow]

Look i don't care how its done, but I'm just happy with M$ getting the message that everyone thinks they suck. Boycotting is good, but lawsuits are better. I say make them spend some of that coin they've got from screwing to customer. I hope the EU takes it all.

Re:anti M$ is good no matter what

[XXIstCenturyBoy]

And by 'everyone' you mean?

Re:anti M$ is good no matter what

[danny256]

but I'm just happy with M$ getting the message that everyone thinks they suck.

Hey speak for yourself, I still love Microsoft, I think windows 2000 is a wonderful operating system. In fact according to a recent pole, 47% of slashdot users use a microsoft operating system, so please don't generalize and say that everyone thinks they suck.

At least we'll already know the error messages.

[erik_fredricks]

"Fatal Error. You need to restart your computer. You will lose all unsaved...oops, I mean, We're sorry-your call could not be completed as dialed. Please hang up and try again."

So what will it change?

[XXIstCenturyBoy]

I work in as a cell phone cie customer service rep, and beleive me when I say that a MS OS cant be worse than the Nokia, Motorolla or Vtech one. I did have to explain to customer that they needed to to see a store tech to flash to a newer software version (ie : Why can't Nokia get a grip about pressing and holding 0+8 for emergency call EVEN WHEN THE KEYPAD IS LOCKED? Ask your local emergency service... Up to 10% of all the call are Nokia pocket calls... And they change that behavior at every friggin update!)

Re:So what will it change?

[The Cydonian]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but if you're suggesting that Nokia phones allow emergency calls even when the keypad is locked, it might be a good idea to look at that stats once again.

Something tells me you'll get a lot more calls.

microsoft cellphones?

[absurdhero]

good thing Microsoft doesn't have a hold on this market. I wouldn't want clippy asking me, "Are you breaking up with your girlfriend? I can help!"

Re:microsoft cellphones?

[Cheese Cracker]

I wouldn't want clippy asking me, "Are you breaking up with your girlfriend? I can help!" ...while the intelligent MS Smartphone sends your data to all .NET enabled dating services, who in turn pays MS a referral bonus.

Re:microsoft cellphones?

[taernim]

Slashdot reader/poster.... girlfriend.

I believe the scenario you actually meant was: Clippy says, "I see you are losing your mind. Would you like some help with that?" ;)

Re:microsoft cellphones?

[mpe]

while the intelligent MS Smartphone sends your data to all .NET enabled dating services, who in turn pays MS a referral bonus.

With you knowing nothing about it until you get the bill. Which also includes a fee for every "match" .NET dating services incorporated has found. All of which are in the US state of Utah, which was the closest match it could find to "upset".

Re:It'll never fly.

[erik_fredricks]

No, Mr. Ballmer, they haven't. Thing is, you're unclear on "double jeopardy." It basically entails charging a person, under U.S. law, for the same offense twice.

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.

Re:It'll never fly.

[WeaponOfChoice]

Here is the UK the latest point update to the legal system includes removing the double jeopardy clause. I guess this is both good and bad in the same way that the original clause was both good and bad...

Re:It'll never fly.

[Gaijin42]

well, I totally disagree with this current lawsuit, but double jeopardy doesn't come into account.

Double Jeopordy refers to criminal action, all these anti trust suits are civil action (based on prior criminal acts tho)

Also, even if it was tried under criminal code, the suit is for a seperate market, which would presume seperate actions, which would be triable. (Just because you get off on a murder rap doesn't mean you can murder someone else for free).

Thirdly, Double Jeopordy is primarily a US thing (though much of europe has it as well. However, UK recently introduced legistlation weakening or canceling double jeopordy (Though I think it hasn't been signed yet, and may have been killed in process)

see : http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:JeAJHIKSZIQC: abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/britain_ju stice020801.html+uk+double+jeopardy&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

What for?

[evil_one]

Can someone PLEASE explain to me what the deal is with 'smartphones'?
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 /. every 5 minutes isn't necessary for geek survival.
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.

Re:What for?

[zorglubxx]

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.

And why cant smartphones be the alternative?? It's not because you dont find them useful that others wont.

Re:What for?

[mikewas]

So I'm not the only one who thinks this is strange! I'd rather have a seperate phone, PDA, and camera rather than one product that does a mediocre job of all 3 functions.

When my boss saw my Zaurus he asked if it had a camera & cell phone. I told him no ... and it didn't wipe my ass either.

Re:What for?

[evil_one]

I'm not saying they can't be used - Usefulness is not even it, so far as I'm concerned. My 'issue' is that the 'old' tech works fine.
The 'new' features are already implemented elsewhere. People that 'need' these devices - businessmen - have briefcases, so there is space for a PDA.
Then there is the price. Why would anyone want to carry around a $200 device (nb. - with contract) that's going to be dropped at some point? The question is further reinforced by the alternative - a pair of devices, each less than $100 (and without a contract too!) capable of the same things.

The 'new' tech doesn't really benefit us, it's just a case of 'keeping up with the Joneses.'

Re:What for?

[Cyno01]

...checking /. every 5 minutes isn't necessary for geek survival.

Blasphemy.

Re:What for?

[squiggleslash]

We don't _need_ smartphones, but they're damned useful if you have them. I had a Nokia 9000 in the UK, and now I'm here in the US I've got a 9290. It's a complete computer and phone in one unit.

Why? Because the alternative is carrying a PDA and a phone together. And I've tried that, and it doesn't work. And there are advantages of having the two in one unit anyway, such as being able to have your contacts list in one place (rather than lists of phone numbers on the phone, and lists of names and addresses and other details on the PDA.), and, of course, you can browse the web, write and receive email, and other such nicities.

The only proviso is that if you're planning on having a smartphone, MAKE SURE IT'S A GSM NETWORK YOU'RE GOING TO BE USING. CDMA and "D-AMPS" (the older digital US standard still used by most of AT&T and Cingular though both are upgrading) type networks tie your phone service to one phone. There are occasions in which a smartphone is too bulky (and too valuable) to be something you'll want to drag around with you. With GSM, you have the option of just taking out the SIM and putting it in a smaller phone. With CDMA and D-AMPS, you have the choice of putting up with the risks/discomfort of taking it with you, or losing phone service completely.

I love my Nokia 9290. The whole is definitely greater than the sum (PDA + phone).

Re:What for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, smartphones are made by corporations. If you live in the united states, you are morally required to buy what companies produce.

To do any less is simply theft. Just because you "don't need" something, that's no excuse to avoid buying it.

Do you think companies hire employees and develope products for free?

Re:What for?

[interiot]

Seriously, the camera on these phones must really really suck. All barely adequate digital cameras are huge compared to the size increase these phones get when they add a camera. And if you want something like the super-tiny Canon Powershot 330, then the camera alone costs $500. I'm just saying, the CCB and optics quality must be really low, they're probably comparable to something like a barbie camera.

Re:What for?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I haven't really tried the PDAs with built-in other stuff, but I think it might be nice to have a built-in camera and cell phone, or a cell phone with a PDA and camera function. If it is an idea that is accepted, then I would think that future product versions should have improvements to make such a combination more acceptable to more people. For some people, having to keep track of one object might be easier than tracking three. For others, having three objects might reduce the risks should you loose something.

A camera probably doesn't need to be high resolution, it would probably be comparable to my dad's old VGA resolution Mavica. If one needs a good camera, buy a good camera, but I think history has proven that something that is "good enough" will do the job despite obvious improvements that a better product would have.

Re:What for?

[Moofie]

Petroleum-fueled light sources work fine.
Horses and buggies work fine.
Pointy sticks and wet clay work fine.

Since when does YOU thinking an alternative "works fine" make it not OK (or cool or "Good" or whatever) for somebody else to use a different thing?

You might note that other people disagree with you. You might also note that their disagreeing with you in no way infringes on your soverignty.

So...you don't think smartphones are useful? Fine. Me, I'd rather have one display unit, one place to store phone numbers, and one plastic box to carry in my pocket, instead of two.

As the ancient adage goes, YMMV.

Re:What for?

[Dexter77]

Do you have a calendar?
How about a camera?
And music, do you listen the latest albums?
and so on.. tv, videocamera, vibrator, etc.

Why the hell should I carry around 10 different devices when technology allows to put them all in one package.

What is happening is not smartPHONES but technology integration. 70 years ago people didn't have radios in their cars and many thought just like you that 'I can listen to radio at home, why should there be one in my car'. Nowadays I really don't know anyone who still thinks that radios don't belong in cars - do you?

Re:What for?

[10Ghz]

Can someone PLEASE explain to me what the deal is with 'smartphones'?
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?

For some reason that reminds me of some things I have heard in the past:

"I get newspapers, why should I read news on the Internet?"

"Why send an e-mail when I could send a real letter?"

"I have regural phone, I don't need a cell-phone"

Nobody is forcing you to buy smartphones. You could use your 5160 for years to come. But I bet that in 10 years you will be wondering "How on earth did we manage with those phones 10 years ago?!". Every single time when some new technology emerges, there are some luddites arguing "Bah! We don't need that! We have xxxxxxxx that does the same thing already!". And in few years time that new technology has entrenched itself and everyone is using it.

You say that we don't need cell-phones for email, since we can use laptops or PDA's for that. Convince me: why should I carry big and heavy laptop with me just to check email, if I could do it with a 80gram device that fits in my pocket? Why should I carry a PDA for that matter, if I could use just one device instead?

Re:What for?

[squiggleslash]

First, the argument of a unified contact list falls apart with decent synchronization software.

No, it doesn't. Synchronization is a bodge to get around the problem, it doesn't remove the problem. You still end up having to carry around two lists, and ensure that those two lists contain, essentially, the same information. And you still end up having to carry those two lists around with you.

I hate browsing the net on a phone. I hate the tiny screen, the dumbed down webpages, the lame-ass ways of entering data.. Admittedly, the 9260 is a lot better than most phones, but I'll go with GPRS connectivity and a serial connection to my laptop any day of the week.

Me too. However, I have no intention of carrying my laptop around with me 90% of the time. Who could even begin to do that? The whole point is you have a pocketable device that means you have access any where, and at any time.

But I guess that's the UNIX philosophy in me working .. Each tool with a purpose. The PDA for taking things down in a hurry (not like you want to break the laptop out of your bag when all you want to do is move an appt up an hour ..), the phone for connectivity, the laptop as a more heavy-duty tool.

You've kind of got it without realising. In the above you're saying that you would use a PDA in place of your laptop when you don't want to break it out of your "bag". Of course, you wouldn't normally carry around your laptop to begin with.... I would say a smartphone is merely a tool that replaces the PDA and cellphone in one go. It's the KSH or BASH of the electronics world, replacing SH so you don't have to have to have fifty other tools you'd be carrying around anyway just to get anything working, and with the added advantage that the combination works better than having these tools seperated.

You're carrying around a PDA and a phone. Why?

Re:What for?

[evil_one]

Petroleum-fueled light sources work fine.
Horses and buggies work fine.
Pointy sticks and wet clay work fine.

These examples do not hold.
All of the inventions or dovelopments that displaced these examples showed great improvement over the former. Electric light, for example, cheaper and cleaner. Horseless carrages, the same, plus faster.Pointy sticks and wet clay... I have no idea what you're talking about there.

So far the only arguement for smartphones that I'll accept is the 'get a GSM one and put the chip in a different phone when apropriate' one.
Still, I don't see the cost or convenience features of truly new tech.

Re:What for?

[evil_one]

and right now, buying the devices separately costs less than buying one device to do it all.

Oh, my grandpa disagrees - he didn't know anyone that thought putting radios in cars was anything but a great idea.

Re:What for?

[evil_one]

Why would you want to check your e-mail away from home - or at least a sutably private spot like an office or a friend's computer?
I don't pick up my mail on the way out of the house, so I can open it at work or the mall - I pick it up on the way home and open it there.
I don't do this for convenience reasons, but for ones of privacy.
Some people embrace tech like this, tech that makes it easier and easier for poeple to get ahold of you anywhere. This 'new tech' lets people reach you while you're on the can, while you're on a romantic night out, while you're driving down the road - Why?
Is it SO important that it can't wait 20 minutes?

Re:What for?

[mpe]

Pointy sticks and wet clay... I have no idea what you're talking about there.

A reusable writing tablet. Considering some of the chemicals in the pens (and that they run out) a whiteboard might not qualify as an improvement.

Re:What for?

[insomaniac]

Well, I for one would love a phone/pda combination because then I'd have an option to SSH from my phone.
Granted I won't use it often, but the ability to try and troubleshoot a server while I don't have to leave the place (bar/club/whatever) I'm at.

Trust me people that are on call would love these...

Re:What for?

[Ozymandias_KoK]

What are you complaining about? If you don't want to use those features, don't get them. If you don't want to be interrupted, turn the damn phone off. Enough people DO want those kinds of things and see a reason to use them. There's no need to act like they are a bunch of idiots because they don't think the same way you do.

Re:What for?

[evil_one]

There's no need to act like they are a bunch of idiots because they don't think the same way you do.

That's more than a bit presumptious. I never said that users of smartphones are idiots. I don't think that either. I do, however, think that you've missed the meaning of my words entirely.

Re:What for?

[evil_one]

Ahh, that would make sense. Chalkboards perhaps?

Re:What for?

[Ozymandias_KoK]

Ok, maybe that characterization was a bit much. But my point still stands -- people should be able to do those things if they want to, whether or not you think they need to.

Don't get me wrong. I think people get way too far into "being connected" but it's still just as easy as turning it off if you find that's not for you. That's a much better solution than not having the capability to do those things, since they might be vitally important or at least useful to people.

Re:What for?

[evil_one]

I didn't say people shouldn't be able to do these things, I just have a problem with stuff introduced as new tech that's not [new], especially when its cost benefits are not present.
It should be also pointed out that people who would find this 'vitally important' have many alternatives, most of which have already been discussed elsewhere in this thread.

Interesting...

[sconeu]

Considering that the only design win MS had gotten recently dropped them.

Disclaimer: I believe that MS is an abusive monopoly and that the DoJ rolled. I also believe that the States blew the retry of the penalty phase.

What a bunch of BS

[geekee]

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.

Re:What a bunch of BS

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Microsoft lost $177M in three months on the xbox. They couldnt of done that without the desktop monopoly cashcow.They can just shovel money at anything and get away with it, further expanding their monopoly, making them more money..

Re:What a bunch of BS

[Soko]

What I gather is that the EU is trying to protect an emerging market. Microsoft is able to tie thier SmartPhones to thier Windows and .Net platform, further leveraging the Windows monopoly, and in doing so would strengthen that monopoly. This would effectively short-circuit any compeditors products.

If .Net is truly open, I would agree with you in that Microsoft would simply be providing infrastructure on an even basis with any prospective competitors. If they purposely leverage their Windows monopoly in order to gain un-fair advantage in the smartphone market, that's a different matter - they would be attepmting to acquire another monopoly. The EU is trying to keep the competition even, at the start anyway. If everyone in the Phone/PDA combo market is afforded the same advantages, and Microsoft still wins, OK, fine, they deserved it. As it is, there won't be much - if any at all - competition due to the Windows juggernaught.

Crap. The reason I'm never thrilled with Microsoft is that they present a lose-lose situation. Sure, they should be allowed to "innovate" to thier hearts content - everyone is even before the law, after all. Everytime they do, however, they seem to desolate the compeditive landscape by nuking everything with thier Windows-leverage bomb.

Bleah. 'Nuff typing - I'm going back to my bottle of rye...

Soko

Re:What a bunch of BS

[AzrealAO]

That's bullshit, lots of companies lose money when breaking into a new market. In fact, companies show a loss all the time, it is not something that is unique to Microsoft, or Monopolies.

Re:What a bunch of BS

[Ozymandias_KoK]

Is having a business with multiple product lines, where some are profitable and prop up the unprofitable ones somehow illegal? Hell, it's not even immoral. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find any business that doesn't do this at some level. Even from an employee perspective, you have people that don't generate a profit and are subsidized by those that do.

I agree that MS has some pretty nasty anti-competitive behaviors, but you really should come up with a better argument than that. You have to do more than say "they have a lot of money, they're.....BAD!"

Re:What a bunch of BS

[geekee]

That is nonsense. You have no understanding of the Sherman Antitrust act. All companies in the US use profits to expand their markets. It's called free enterprise. Just look at Johnson and Johnson. Are they guilty of monopolistic practices?

Microsoft monopolizing AGAIN...

[snellac]

Seriously. I've noticed this too, lately, as I work for a small Verizon Wireless store in our local mall. More and more phones are coming with the big PDA-type screens preloaded with MS's PocketPC software with a myriad of other Microsoft exclusives. Kyocera, Samsung, Sony, Broyhill, Nokia, all of the major cell phone brands have begun releasing PocketPC and Palm based PDA/phone combos.

This is fine for competition, except Microsoft has been known to leverage their monopoly power to expand it to other businesses. What gives them the right to prepackage their PocketPC software on other companies' phones? It's absolutely dispicable.

What the EU claims is that Microsoft is using their .NET Passport authentication to tie customers into a spiralling frenzy of tie-ins and products, such as Excel and Age of Empires. More and more of our consumers are being forced into purchasing these telephones and using them to converse with their cohorts while Bill Gates and Co. can listen in on their conversations. These consumer terrorists are forced to browse their email through Microsoft's scrupulous Pocket Outlook for their telephones and MSN Messenger for their SMS replacements.

In short, I just hope that the EU can finally bring down the Micro$oft empire that threatens competition in a market trying to be free. Their behavior is absolutely disgusting and unwarranted in a free market system, which is exactly why the EU must do everything they can to bring them down, because Ashcroft won't.

Re:Microsoft monopolizing AGAIN...

[Planesdragon]

What gives them the right to prepackage their PocketPC software on other companies' phones? It's absolutely dispicable.

MS doesn't. They have salespeople who go to the mobile phone folks, and conivnce them to buy the MS PocketPC stuff.

Phone/PDA combos are a fairly natural synergy (how many high-power computing devices do you REALLY need in your pocket?), and MS moving PocketPC over to the phone makes sense.

But, really, I don't see how they have a monopoly. Palm still licenses Palm OS, and it competes with PocketPC in just about every area PocketPC is in. It's not like Macintosh, where Macs are to "PCs" like motorcycles are to cars; most of the functionality of a PDA (or a phone) is built right in, and neither MS or Palm are selling their own phones. (Palm is even running their OS divison as a seperate company)

Re:Microsoft monopolizing AGAIN...

[cstrommen]

I can't speak for the others, but Nokia isn't using Microsoft's os as they have their own (Symbian) and it seems that most phone-providers are actually switching to this one. Sendo is a good example of this, as told in a previous slashdot story.

The companies that have been using the Windows Smartphone, now known as Windows CE .NET as far as I can tell, have reported a lot of serious problems with the os. It constantly crashes and freezes (no, this is not a joke nor a flame, this is a fact), something that is driving more and more of them over to the Symbian OS.

To conclude, there are many companies that have decided to use the Microsoft alternative, but more and more of these are ditching it in favour of the more commonly used Nokia os.

Re:Microsoft monopolizing AGAIN...

[ball-lightning]

What gives them the right? Its called competition.... You know, Intel used to be a memmory company, and then they branched into CPUs. Micrsoft, just like every other company under the sun is just trying to find yet another source of revenue. What they DON'T have the right to do is use anti-competitive strategies to make everyone buy said Microsoft Cell Phones

Re:Microsoft monopolizing AGAIN...

[Anonymous Coward]

I currently use Verizon Wireless for my cell phone. When I signed up for the Verizon Wireless service - Verizon ran its own messaging infrastructure. Verizon has since discontinued their own messaging infrastructure and are now forcing existing customers to sign up with Microsoft and get accounts on either Hotmail or MSN in order to have email addresses for instant messaging (e.g., stock prices, sports scores, etc.).

Needless to say I am annoyed with this. The registration process does not work with Mozilla 1.2b (must I use IE? where will it end?) - and the instant messaging services via email addresses does not work unless I sign up with Microsoft - and provide them with all necessary registration data: name, date-of-birth, gender, zip code, occupation, etc.

I need a Microsoft passport id for installing Windows XP. I have an MSDN subscription through work - and I need a passport id in order to use that effectively. I need a passport id to have access to Hotmail (which I don't want) and the instant messaging functionality on my phone. And probably more such 3rd party services coming in the future. All of this stuff can be traced and linked to a single on-line identity.

This is too much information to be providing Microsoft (and the "partners" they share it with). I was "slammed" here on my cell phone service. I would have picked a different wireless provider if I knew I would need a passport ID in order to use the Verizon Wireless services. I don't like Microsoft's Big Brother-like passport concepts - and don't want to put my credentials in a single Mircosoft-owned basket.

I suspect that this is what is happening with other cell phone users with different companies - both here and outside the US. It is all part of Microsoft's grand plot to track us all - not just on the web, but through our cell phones, and who knows what's next? On-line banking?

I can see why people are annoyed. All power to the EU here.

Re:Microsoft monopolizing AGAIN...

[jodo]

I have no M$ accounts so I have not seen the user agreements. But what do your terms of service say regarding the privacy of your life? Will M$ be selling all your sensitive data? Will they be sharing it with partners who will sell it? Will they lay low now and accumulate a mass of customers and then in a "security patch" change the TOS to include selling your data?
Knowing who you call.What you say and write. What you buy.Where you live. How much money you receive and spend.Where you are right now as we speak.This data is a marketer and politician's and dictator's dream If we the people do not take control of this now the $40 Billion Bill has in the bank will look like chump change in a few years.And we will live under the MWO.[Microsft World Order]

Vacuum cleaners probably safe.

[bstadil]

Remember the old joke that the first time MS will make a product that doesn't such is when they enter the vacuum cleaner market.

haiku

[bobtheprophet]

True, I hate MS
still, the EU is not right
to try to fight them

If no complaint has
been raised by MS victims
who're they to fight?

Arbitrarily
picking fights over all things
is not the best plan.

Re:haiku

[bobtheprophet]

In a legal case
the defendant must complain
or it is pointless.

Re:drop 'em

[rseuhs]

After Europeans are forced to spend a bit of time at the Bash prompt

Neither KDE/Linux nor MacOSX users are forced to use bash, so your plan is doomed to fail...

MS Dildoes?

[Blue Stone]

I can envisage an awful lot of angry lesbians, frustrated by their MSvibrator® telling them it needs to re-boot, half-way through an orgasm.

Bill doesn't want to get on the wrong side of some of theose butch dykes. :oS

microsoft mobile software

[kkith]

So does that mean I have to do software upgrades and security patches every week now?

huh?

[mpost4]

Ok I admit I don't like microsoft, but I do not see MS trying to get into the phone market. Only recently have I seen phones with with the PocketPC OS, but I saw that comming when I saw phones with PalmOS on them. Why because there are people out there that do like PocketPC (I personaly dont see how, but if they want that they have the right to have what they want, is that not what we are realy fighting for here, the right to chose, so let them chose what they want)
Also the artical said that there were no complants, how can you file a suit agains a defendent with out a plantive?

And to others who have said they don't see why people want these, well it is nice to have, I have a cell phone a seperat PDA (palmOS) and a laptop, and I have the calbes to go to the laptop and the palm, it is nice to do a quick check of the e-mail when i am sitting on the bus with nothing else to do. ( I admit I would not surf the web with it, after all it is a CDMA PCS phone so the speed is only a 14.4 modem)

I would say no law suit now, but if they are consered maybe they could put some resaonable checks in place, but just don't single on company out, the checks should be there for all companys.

too little, too late?

[djg0005]

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.
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 .NET platform may have quite a fight ahead of them.
So...pass the popcorn and step up to get good ring-side seats to this one in the next few years.

Worrying

[James Nicola]

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.....

Re:Worrying

[vandy1]

What??? Can I have some of what you're smoking?
From internetnews.com:
However, the code won't be open in the sense that full open source platforms are, such as Linux. Rather, Symbian will allow developers in the program the same access to source code that it already has given to mobile phone manufacturers.

That's hardly Open Source...

Michael

Re:Worrying

[James Nicola]

I said Nokia/Symbian, not Symbian. Nokia's Series 60 platform(which happens to be based on Symbian) is the platform that's likely to win out in the mobile phones market. Have a look at http://press.nokia.com/PR/200211/880712_5.html This is Nokia's press release regarding Sendo's decision to kick Phone Edition into touch. 'The Series 60 is a software platform for feature- and application rich smart phones that Nokia licenses to mobile handset manufacturers...Nokia licenses Series 60 Platform as a source code. The model enables licensees to contribute to the development of the platform...' The source is open to licensees - and the licence is on the OSI's approved list at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/nokia.php

Re:Worrying

[vandy1]

Sorry, I just thought *what*? You're right - I'm wrong. It seems that licence is a GPL-like licence from clause 3.2:

3.2 Availability of Source Code. Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve (12) months after the date it initially became available, or at least six (6) months after a subsequent version of that particular Modification has been made available to such recipients. You are responsible for ensuring that the Source Code version remains available even if the Electronic Distribution Mechanism is maintained by a third party.

So it looks like we get even more *free* software! Thank you for pointing out my error.

Michael

Re:drop 'em

[anthonyrcalgary]

That would make things worse for Microsoft.

If that were to happen, not only would most governments and companies in Europe decide that depending on Microsoft would be too risky, but many governments and companies throughout the world would arrive at the same conclusion.

Home users will make different choices as they always do, but Microsoft would lose it's status as the de facto standard.

Microsoft thrives on being the "safe" choice. It will do nothing to jeapordize that.

This makes no sense...

[Tuxinatorium]

How can you prosecute a company for antitrust violations when it doesn't even have a majority of the market share?

Re:This makes no sense...

[squiggleslash]

You can when it has a monopoly in another area that it intends to levera... damn it, USE, it's USE, there's no stupid effing word "leverage", well ok, there is but there SHOULDN'T BE... sorry, start again:

You can (prosecute a company for antitrust violations when it doesn't even have a majority of the market share) when it has a monopoly in another area (in this case operating systems for commodity computer systems able to interact with the majority of other computer users) that it intends to use to control the market it doesn't yet have a majority of (or any) market share.

Think of it as "Attempted Murder". "How can you prosecute someone for a crime in that whole barrel of law concerning murder against someone else who isn't even dead?"

Re:This makes no sense...

[Tuxinatorium]

Good point, but how is microsoft going to take advantage of their OS monopoly to monopolize cell phones? I mean, they have nothing to do with one another. Unless they plan to modify windows so that other mobile phone OSes can't interface with it, I don't see how Microsoft's windows monopoly will be of any benefit to them in the cell phone market.

Re:This makes no sense...

[Gorgonzola]

Think about GPRS and 3G phones that allow instant messaging (heck, you can do that over SMS on older GMS phones if you want). What if MS Messenger only likes to interoperate with MS Smartphones? Another example: one of the things with interactive services is how you bill them. Wouldn't passport come in handy, because you can then bill even the customers that use prepaid phones? The same applies for online gaming, you will end up with online game environments with a mix of mobile and desktop users. The provider that can cater to both user groups through Microsoft better will have an advantage.

Re:This makes no sense...

[mpe]

If MS use passport to authenticate, and use a propriatory protocol ("because it's more secure"), then others are locked out.

In practice using a proprietary protocol whould tend to mean less secure, assuming it's secure at all.

This is based on suspicion

[i_luv_linux]

As most other Slashdot news about Microsoft, this news is also not true or at least it is based on assumptions, makeup stories, which are not true.

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

Re:This is based on suspicion

[kraksmoka]

yes, the suspicion that a known offender is getting ready to commit a crime. all they are doing is applying the american doctrine of pre-emtive strike to a business target. is there something wrong with that?

fact is, by reading your post, i can only come to two conclusions.

1. you make your living as an M$ geek

2. big brother has you.

an m$ world would have every last user stick their credit card into a slot to boot up, and charge by the second for licensing. don't matter if its a mobile phone, a PC or a game box. if you're in favor of M$ taxes, go right ahead, walk down that road.

the typical mobile phone has only the most important personal information stored on it. letting a company that has a history of invading the privacy of users has little place in that equasion.

since u probably don't know, the EU has these things called PRIVACY LAWS.

besides, i'm not particularly worried by M$ just yet myself, nobody really wants a cellphone with a fan that crashes everytime you get a phone call while you surf the web. . . . .

Any signs...

[DrunkenPenguin]

"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?
----

Re:Any signs...

[Osty]

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?

Doesn't matter. You can't sue for something someone might do. I might get drunk and kill your daughter in a drunk driving incident, but until I do so, you cannot sue me. I might slander you, or steal your wife, or do any of a number of things that would be grounds for a lawsuit, but until I actually do them, you cannot sue me. Same goes for Microsoft. Just because they might get a monopoly in the mobile market doesn't mean the EU has the right to preemptively sue them (never mind the fact that having a monopoly in and of itself is not a bad thing at all, only abusing it is).

Then again, let the EU try. They'll lose, because they can't prove Microsoft has done anything wrong at this point.

Re:Any signs...

[pilot]

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?

or that google was going to defeat yahoo in the search engine war.

Re:Any signs...

[rhizome]

People actually considered Yahoo to be a search engine? Where I'm coming from, it was AltaVista to Google, and yes, I was always hoping someone would make a better search engine. I still hope that better search engines are developed and I doubt that it will always be Google who is the best.

Re:Any signs...

[xutopia]

I saw signs but was certain when they came out with Internet Explorer 4.

Netscape 4 didn't come close to Internet Explorer then!

When better software comes up people use it. It's that simple.

Re:Any signs...

[tschild]

Just because they might get a monopoly in the mobile market doesn't mean the EU has the right to preemptively sue them...

Which is where the main error in the Slashdot articla comes in. The Slashdot article speaks of a suit where the referenced article correctly mentions a case

Antitrust measures by the EU commission work differently from antitrust measures by the US government.

The procedure in Europe is that the EU commission can, after reviewing evidence and submissions, impose, as an administrative not judicial measure, limitations on the company/companies concerned, e.g. not to do a certain merger.

If the company concerned won't go along, the company must sue. That's the other way round from the US where the government must bring the suit.

It has already begun

[florin]

It doesn't matter that Stinger has 0 percent market penetration right now. With the promise of the best interoperability with other devices, Microsoft's reign in the next 5 years is practically certain. Sure, MS' first attempt will fail as usual. But their war chest is filled and they'll keep at it until Symbian is just a distant memory (hello OS/2, Wordperfect, Palm, Nintendo)

Microsoft's licensing agreement for its phone OS is like an echo from a past 5 years before the US found MS guilty of abusing its monopoly. Manufacturers and operators are allowed exactly zero options in changing the look and feel of the phones they sell. No logoes, no additional programs, it's their OEM desktop OS with mandatory Internet Explorer and MSN icon routine all over again.

Apropos Internet Explorer, the dingy browser that MS ships on their phones has nothing but the name in common. It doesn't even support frames. Why anyone would want precious phone memory wasted on that is beyond me.

Re:It has already begun

[MWelchUK]

IIRC in the UK the palm OS based devices still sell in higher quantities.

That one is not dead yet.

The Nokia Protection Act of 2003

[burnsy]

Sounds like the Nokia protection act. Sad, but we know how anti-US Europe is and Nokia is the only consumer level tech company to make any sort of dent in the US market.

Of course Nokia has been asleep at the wheel with their phone offerings in the US. I mean really, who is going to carry that brick of phone known as the 9000i. Geeesh.

Re:The Nokia Protection Act of 2003

[WildBeast]

I agree completely. And no, I'm not American and I don't like Bush either.

Re:The Nokia Protection Act of 2003

[Gorgonzola]

Ever heard of Philips/Marantz? Philips is a European company, although its US subsidiaries have effectively brainwashed the US consumers to believe it is an US company.

Litmus test?

[Lumpish Scholar]

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.

Re:Litmus test?

[Whibla]

Wow! These are some interesting figures, however there are a number of possible explanations for them. For example, consider any IP that has been licensed from another company and incorporated into MS's products. MS can split the license fee in any way it chooses: 3 operating systems (NT, 9x, & CE) therefore they assess a one third cost to each of these systems - irrespective of volume of sales.
(I know that this is a grossly simplified example, but companies do do this sort of thing. Why? Tax reasons mainly...)
It is difficult to be sure without knowing how far down their P&L (or IS, depending on which country you're reading this in) Operating Profit falls.

>it's one interesting test in trying to decide Microsoft's corporate intentions>

That would be to make money!

To compare: A major motor manufacturer, in the first two years of production of one of it's newer models, was losing $1500 on each car it sold. Today, this model is the most common car I see on the roads, and is making money. I'm afraid that loss-leaders are standard business practice.

Or: Consider the business plans of 99% of the dot-com companies of a few years ago. I lost count of the number of reports I read that said something along the lines of: Currently losing $1M / year, on revenues of $50K. Projected to be in profit in 2005... They may have been right - if only they'd had the money (or the investor confidence) to last until 2005. This is not (necessarily) a bad business practice.

Finally, as to CE devices... I remember the old HP Jornada. A damn fine PDA. Best in class as far as I was concerned (I haven't got a clue about the new ones, so don't start :-)) It ran CE. It also ran into serious competition from Palm. Do you need any more reasons why CE might have stopped selling so well?

Anyway, sorry to ramble - and, seriously, thanks for the link.

Re:Litmus test?

[Ozymandias_KoK]

It's called an investment. Almost every business loses money initially, and then (hopefully!) acheives profitability. And yes, some companies have an advantage in that they can stick it out longer in the loss phase. It's not illegal to have money to do that.

Re:drop 'em

[Cassius105]

Im English and will say id love to see this happen :)

People in Europe would switch in mass to linux, mac and unix
Which in my opinion would make Europe the best computing continent in the world since we would not have to deal with microsoft and there shite software

I guess they need to change their slogan

[Subcarrier]

Pretty soon, they'll have everything, then they'll go after the dildo market(assuming in the future their will be some mini-os in dildos :)

Where do you want to come today?

alot of you seem to be missing the point...

[shaitand]

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.

Re:alot of you seem to be missing the point...

[Anonymous Coward]

But as someone thats read the M$ smartphone spec they arn't doing anything particularly propietory in terms of messaging or protocol support. Neither would the cell networks buy such units if they did.

Quoting the artical...
"The companies contend that Microsoft is bundling its corporate e-mail software, called Titanium, with code that ensures servers have better connections to Windows-based wireless devices than to competitors' devices, according to the article."

Which is about wireless networking in the LAN scope e.g. WiFi... now as much as the cell network operators may think its evil its different to GSM so wheres the conflict?
Unless said operators are frightening of large scale WiFi networks removing their market to sell GSM/GPRS for data users.

Re:alot of you seem to be missing the point...

[shaitand]

"particularly propietory" I admit I haven't read the smartphone spec, so I won't counter your knowledge of it. But that you had to say particularly instead of just they aren't doing anything proprietary altogether I think makes a good part of my point. Let's not forget, nobody has brought a new anti-trust suit against them yet, there is still plenty of time for them to release the software and to see from the realware instead of the current vaporware whether or not they are giving even the slightest edge to their cell software from the windows platform. The hope is that this very leak will keep them on thier toes and make them change those plans if they exist. I hope to see microsoft behaving. No more servers with extra features that can only be accessed from microsoft clients. No more extremely slow implementations of the open protocols and standards based communcations they feel they have to support. If this isn't "particularly proprietory" like microsoft's implementation of javascript isn't "particularly proprietory" I hope hear word of microsoft back in court.

Re:alot of you seem to be missing the point...

[videodriverguy]

Well said - how many other companies do you know that can spend $billions on something without having to make a profit (Xbox etc.).
The fact that MS does not have to reward shareholders allows them enormous advantages compared with other compaines.
Hell, they can even afford to pay for the cellphones, in the way of negative costs, until they are profitable (if ever).
I wonder how much money MS had made for the various CE initiatives - it's probably nothing, but their market penetration has improved, undoubtedly.

Microsoft

[Gary Franczyk]

This is almost like when someone gets arrested for a large crime. They charge him with just about everything they can think of and hope something sticks. They know he is guilty, but they do not know just HOW guilty he is.

Here, Microsoft has been hit with just about every sort of suit imaginable, because everyone knows they have been pushing the limits of their monoplolistic powers. We are just hoping one of these suits will finally give them what they deserve.

My God, you're right!

[Sean Clifford]

Oh my God, you're so right. I mean, what kind of clueless idiot would slog through the dregs of crap posted here on /. -
- much less post a rant about it.
If our existence and this blog's existence is so fucking meaningless...then how pathetic and useless is your contribution?

cellphone phone home

[kraksmoka]

considering M$'s track record, would anyone be surprised if an M$ phone phoned home to redmond and told who you've called, for how long and when?

they already do this with Media Player, a flagship software piece. Internet ready cellphones use a very small percentage of the available bandwidth over the course of a day.

now do you wonder why the privacy obsessed EU (nothing wrong with that, mind you) has a bug up their ass on this one???

the thought of that happening makes me sick, but it's not unthinkable. big brother redmond likes these sort of things.

it's bad enough that that sort of personal information could be purchased by a government or business, but what if they did something worse to wring a buck out of the world????

M$ Girlfriend-ware, find out who your man's been calling this whole time . . . . a sure-fire moneymaker.

Re:cellphone phone home

[terraformer]

...they already do this with Media Player, a flagship software piece.

FYI: So does the new Real One. Play an MP3 and it phones home. Haven't found a way to turn it off outside of not using it to play anything unless I absolutely have to.

Re:cellphone phone home

[kraksmoka]

FYI: Apple's Quicktime player doesn't phone home. AND the quicktime streaming server is FREE! quit complaining and use technology that minds its own business (not to mention has a higher quality image). nuff sed.

This is just EU protectionism - EU - Screw U

[gelfling]

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?

Re:This is just EU protectionism - EU - Screw U

[cruachan]

Different environment here. Monopolies are seen as a bad thing generally, irrespective or their behaviour to the customer. Actually the 'monopoly' law also applies to oligopolies too, especially where the act as a 'de facto' monopoly.

Also mobiles are apparently much more pervasive in our society. Nearly all kids have them by the time they hit high school (11 or 12), and although we havn't adopted 2.5G and now 3G mobile technology at the rate the mobile companies had hoped, the upgrade trend is most definently continuing and relentless.

It's not unusual nowdays for people to be carry around mobiles with substantial colour screens, embedded JVMs (with downloadable java games increasinly popular), a camera and software including pims, calculators, web browser, alarm clocks and as much else as the manufacturer can embed. Mobile data comms are already just about as fast as desktop, in the next few years they will be faster for most people. It will only be another three or four years before the mobile 'phone' as turned into the truly ubiqutous personal communication device more important to most people than their desktop computer.

So put this trend together with european thinking about monopolies and it's not at all suprising that the EU is very interested in regulating so we are not under MicroSoft's ubiqutous thumb.

Phones as a commodity

[m00nun1t]

Isn't having phones as a commodity a GOOD thing for the consumer? Look at the PC, that is powerful because it's a commodity. Linux would have troubles existing without a commodity PC.

IE started with zero penetration

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

IE started with zero penetration.

For the most part violations of antitrust law have little to do with how successful your illegal acts are. Or even if they were necessary.

There exceptions such as charges of attempted monopolization where somewhat in excess of 50% of the market is the benchmark for that charge. And, that is why Microsoft has not yet been convicted of attempted monopolization of the browser market. It is not because they have not tried that. And, it is not because they have not done it. It is only because the appellate court could only review the facts as of the time of the trial. And, at that time 50% or so was the magic number.

But, the issue here for the EU is the use of the OS monopoly to force the use of other technology in a number of other markets. The EU is about to announce their decision in regard to the media player and server tie-ins. This article just points out that they have a heads on possible illegal acts in regard to the cell phone services as well. But, do not worry if Microsoft does not in fact try to make an illegal tie with the cell phone services, nothing the EU does will affect them.

The EU is certainly not going to penalize MS because of what they might do. But, making sure Microsoft does not violate the laws again in the same manner as they clearly have to date is just good planning.

If you are one of those who claim the browser wars are over so get over it, then you must agree to prohibit Microsoft from even thinking about repeating that kind of illegal act. The browser wars are not over. It is not even a war. Fair and open competition is still precluded by illegal acts. But, any market can recover once illegal acts cease.

Do not worry. If each consumer has to pay $35 for IE or leave it at the store, a very high percentage will leave it or buy another brand. But, as long as the DOJ also favors forcing the sale of IE upon everyone, there will be no competition. The monopoly in browsers will be maintained indefinately. Or, at least until the monopoly OS goes away.

if no illegal acts, no problem

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

If MS does not engage in any illegal acts there is no problem.

If MS did not bundle IE, the DOJ would never have filed its law suit.

If MS had honored the consent decree, the DOJ would never have filed its law suit.

There are a lot of ways by which products and services can be tied in an illegal manner. If MS does none of those, no problem. Right?

If you do not see how MS could use or is using their monopolies it force its way into the cell phone market, then either they are not violating any laws or you do not see it or understand it.

Re:if no illegal acts, no problem

[geekee]

If you see MS making your cell phone talk to your Windows computer as anticompetitive, and that MS should not be allowed to do this, despite the fact that any other sw maker can do the same thing, I would say that law is anticompetitve. As for bundling of IE, that was the govt. protecting a company (Netscape) with a product worth $0. How would you like it if the govt. starts telling Linus what can go into the Linux kernel? It could happen if Linux becomes the dominant force. Not so appetizing then when the shoe's on the other foot.

Re:if no illegal acts, no problem

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Having the cell phone communicate with the computer is not the problem.

Tying the cell phone to the Microsoft brand is the problem. It is the use of one monopoly product to force the use of another branded product that makes it illegal.

Microsoft is more than welcome to communicate with cell phones. But, it is illegal to do so only with Microsoft cell phones.

Other SW can do likewise. But, they do not have monopoly systems forcing the use of other products. That is what makes one act illegal and the other not.

The browser market is a billion dollar plus market. And, Netscape had the dominant position in that market. Microsoft clearly violated antitrust law to preclude Netscape from that business. And, they illegally used their monopoly to do so.

Netscape may have a zero product today. But, that is the direct result of illegal activity and not the natural result of fair and open competition.

If AOL is successful in their law suit, Microsoft will pay to AOL as much as $10-$15 billion dollars for their illegal acts. And, Microsoft will be enjoined from bundling applications with the OS.

As for who puts what into their products, the company selling the product does not have that right at all. Tying of products is illegal. Commingling of products is also illegal. And, Microsoft illegal acts in that regard continue to this day.

So you may want Microsoft to be free to violate the law as they may want. But, they are not. They must comply with all of the laws in all markets in which they wish to do business. Otherwise, they will be prevented from doing business at all.

Re:if no illegal acts, no problem

[geekee]

All this antitrust bs is just protecting companies that can't compete. MS paying AOL x amount of money isn't going to change anthing. No one's forcing cell phone makers and cell phone providers to use MS software. MS is offering what the think is a good product. Take it or leave it. The bundling bs under CLinton thankfully was thrown out. Imagine if they start telling red hat what they can and cannot bundle, or any other Linux distro. It could happen some day if Linux topples MS and all you slashdot geeks will have to say you supported it when they did it to MS, and now it's come back to bite you in the ass. Every company that wants to sell any product will complain they can't compete because linux is bundling Mozilla or sendmail or whatever.

antitrust violations depend upon monopoly markets

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Just remember that IE started with a zero percent share.

It was the illegal use of the OS monopoly that gave MS the monopoly in browsers.

And, it is the illegal bundling of IE with the OS that will maintain it as long as the OS is dominant.

You will buy IE again and again no matter what you think, want or need.

You may not like AOL, but the AOL law suit is about the only hope that fair and open markets will exist on the Microsoft platforms until such as they are eliminated.

The stupid DOJ wants a monopoly in browsers for Microsoft. The DOJ wants a monopoly in media players for Microsoft too.

only illegal means violate the law

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

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.

The fight continues

[mao che minh]

America's justice department failed. Our European brethren have taken up the fight. I applaud them.

Many people accuse me of "bashing" Microsoft because I spout dire disdain against the company. Do these people forget what Microsoft has done? Do any of these people realize how much needless costs Microsoft imposes upon companies? DOes any of these people understand how far they have set us back? Has any of these people ever had to sit across a table from a squad of Microsoft sales people and listen to them out right lie to your management, selling them "solutions" that you know will force your company to can two or three good people a year from now just to afford it?

Microsoft will go down in history as one of the great evils of our capitalistic age. Microsoft taxes the world more then the old "Trust" could have ever hoped to. Microsoft is unabashed about whose pockets they will drain againt their will, or what tactics they will stoop to in order to gain a share of a market. Just as car salesman pitches a deal that is "too good to be true" to a blue collar worker, Microsoft conceals itself in the garb of a sheep and hunts the third world with the ploy of "gifts".

We need to knuckle up. If they win everything will continue to change for the worse. Before long it will be too late to fight, and we will all be asking ourselves "why the hell didn't we fight them when we had the chance?"

not my rules ... Congress wrote them

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

As for IE you are forced to buy it, install it, maintain it, support it and in a number of instances actually use it.

YOUR claim to be able to buy a Chevy is of no value with the fact of the matter is that everyone must first buy a FORD.

Assuming that were the case with automobiles, that is. It is not with cars, as we all know. It is with browsers, as we all know.

But, some will still argue that being forced to buy a FORD each time you shop for a car is okay because you are free to buy a Chevy afterwards. But, then those people do not even believe themselves.

Re:not my rules ... Congress wrote them

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. I just went out and bought a PC without any OS preinstalled. I can choose to install any bleeding OS I choose on it, and I'm under no obligation whatsoever to buy or use either Windows or IE.

Another computer I bought came with Windows and AOL, and a whole host of other software on it. Was I forced to buy them? No. The overall package, including some software I have no use for, was a good deal, even though some parts of the package aren't of any use to me.

Bundling, both hardware and software, is common throughout the computer industry, and does not amount to 'forcing' people to buy things. For example, I was looking at two motherboards, one of which contained inbuilt audio (which I don't need since I've got a better sound card). This one was better overall for my needs, and so I *chose* to buy it, inbuilt audio and all, and then use my sound card with it. Force never entered into it.

but you paid cash money for IE anyway

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Claim that you use Mozilla does not affect the fact you paid cash money for IE on Win 2K.

Even Microsoft says so.

Microsoft says 20% of the price you paid went toward "unearned revenue" which they say includes IE.

You may not have paid a cash amount for Mozilla (although you can), but you were literally forced to do so with Win 2K because Microsoft gives you no other choice.

If you buy Win 2K, you buy IE.

And, if you want to claim it is okay to be forced to buy a product as long as you claim you do not use it, I have a lot of stuff to sell you. Why should Gates be the only one to screw you?

Now that everyone knows what MS is about.....

[bkontr]

Who wants to do buseiness with thugs? MS's own VARs and BPs either fear/loathe them and are pretty much do nothing, the rest of avoid them (if possible) as though they were the plague! Of course they piss europeans off, their monopoly in the US and around the world was certainly not gained using gentlemanly business tactics. They can't last long if they keep up this pace, and if they do thier demise is well deserved. By the way, I don't hate MS but I do loathe the way they do business lately.

Realism

[cheshiremackat]

This case has NOTHING to do with antitrust... it has to do with the EU protecting their home turf (for good reason). European wireless telecommunications are FAR beyond North American levels. Do you think the EU wants a U.S. corporation famous for the 'blue screen of death' becomming the dominant handset manufacturer? Naa, The EU is protecting their local (domestic) interests... If M$ was interested in competing with Nokia/Errikson/vodaphone etc they would BUY one of them... the fact that they are entering the market by themselves it is almost implied that they inted to leverage their OS monopoly. _CMC

Nokia and Symbian

[greenius]

Nokia's SDK phone emulators and development tools only run under Windows, so even if Symbian remain the dominent mobile phone OS, Microsoft will still benefit from all the developers needing Windows for their development tools.

Re:Nokia and Symbian

[greenius]

Excellent... Just off to download it now.

Microsoft Mobile Internet Business Unit

[richie2000]

In the spring of 1999, Microsoft Corporation bought Swedish cell-phone operator software developer Sendit. Bill n' Steve paid 1066 million SEK (roughly $100 million USD) in cash for the company, it's IP and office including around 100 employees located in Värtahamnen, Stockholm. I quit my job on that day.

Sendit's primary product was ICSA - Internet Cellular Smart Access, a modular Windows/SQL Server-based program suite designed to give cellphone operators the ability to offer their subscribers e-mail via SMS, POP3, IMAP4, webmail or a proprietary message retrieval protocol. We also had an Outlook CE plugin and did development both in Content Push technology and, of course, WAP. Microsoft re-branded the place MIBU (see Subject line) and pumped a lot of money and resources into it, hired lots of developers and did a lot of work - but earlier this year, the entire unit was disbanded. Many of the best people had already left - some went to other parts of Microsoft but most had left completely.

This was Microsofts first attempt to leverage into the mobile phone business, but not the last. This was at a time when cell phone operators were invulnerable cash-cows and everybody wanted in at the server side as well as the handset side of the industry. Microsoft does not give up. They may back down and re-group, but they do not give up.

Upholding the law went by the boards then ?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Eu law is different than the US antitrust law.

[miffo.swe]

In the US its ok to use and abuse a monopoly if it doesnt hurt the comsumer. The law doesnt take other companies in account that may be killed off by abusive monopolies.

Eu law in the other hand is all about keeping a level playing field among the companies themselves. Microsoft has more to fear from that law. Many European companies have been slapped with very big fines for much smaller offences than MS have made.

Then again i dont know if we should worry. All MS can succed in if they continue alienating their customers and locking people into Windows etc. is a total fork of the internet. Geeks on one side on open systems and Windows users locked into MSN and NET servers. I dont know if that should be so bad. I could live with it but could MS?

Re:Eu law is different than the US antitrust law.

[mpe]

In the US its ok to use and abuse a monopoly if it doesnt hurt the comsumer. The law doesnt take other companies in account that may be killed off by abusive monopolies.

Whilst at the same time trying to claim that corporations are people. Which would logically make Microsoft a serial killer...

Re:Eu law is different than the US antitrust law.

[MikeBabcock]

The EU version also means a broader source of tax income, since multiple companies are able to play (and quite possibly, more jobs).

damn..

[Extrymas]

They ar so unamerican :)

EU vs. US Part2.

[theolein]

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.

Re:EU vs. US Part2.

[mpe]

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.

Also no sane government wants foreigners able to hold them to ransom. Especially where "gunboat diplomacy" isn't an option.

XBox next?

[oliverthered]

I can see the writing on the walls if Microsoft keeps 'supporting' the XBox.

Re:drop 'em

[NineNine]

Well, consider that every man, woman, and child would have to spend coutless hours trying to figure out PC's all over again, overall productivity would plunge. It would be an economic disaster.

Re:drop 'em

[jorgen]

I personally think that MS should drop Europe. Not sell to 'em at all. After Europeans are forced to spend a bit of time at the Bash prompt

Ah, right. Like the europeans aren't forced to spend anything with MS. Ignoring the fact that a GUI is not an MS-only feature, you shouldn't assume that everybody else is that far up the ass of Bill Gates as yourself, that they can't live without him.

More and more european governments, schools and other institutions are considering (or have already implemented) the opensource alternative. Not only of economic reasons, but because more and more people realizes how unreasonable it is for an european government institution to be so dependant of an american monopolistic company like MS.

But you are right in one thing. I spent 8 years with bash prompts, and I will happily shut the fuck up the day MS disappears from Europe.

if you buy Windows you paid cash for IE ..no choic

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Why must people continue to misrepresent reality?

If you bought from Microsoft anytime after the very first release of Win95 you were in fact forced to buy IE.

There is no other choice permitted by Microsoft Corporation. PERIOD. YOU MUST IN FACT PAY CASH FOR IE IF YOU BUY WINDOWS.

Is it impossible to buy a PC without Windows?

No. You can do that. Walmart will sell you one. And, many white box boys were sell you one. And, you can buy the parts too.

But, lying about paying cash for IE when you buy Windows is just an outright lie because it is not possible to do otherwise and has not been possible since the very first issue of Win95. That means for the last 6 years it was impossible to do.

And, that is why Microsoft now has a monopoly position in browsers.

Re:its only a car

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Consumers do care what they buy. They always have.

Consumers care what food they eat.

Consumers care what clothes they wear.

Consumers care what applications they run.

Consumers care what applications they buy.

Any person who claims that consumers do not care which products they buy is a liar, dead certain.

Why?

Because they themselves care with every purchase they make.

Do not confuse being forced to buy products with the lack of caring.

Almost four hundred million consumers have been forced to buy IE. But, anyone is an idiot for suggesting that consumers do not wish to exercise their right to decide which products they buy in any product category or market.

Yes, they want it to work. But, no body is stupid enough to suggest that all consumers would not care if they were forced to buy a FORD. A FORD runs just as good as a Chevy, right?

It is just outright silly to suggest that consumers do not want to decide what they buy. Only idiots make that claim.

Microsoft will never stop

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Microsoft will never comply with the antitrust laws.

Why?

Because they now know that ignoring them for 5-6 years is highly profitable and the chances are excellent that a stupid and ignorant DOJ will grant to them the monopoly markets they gain illegally.

That will remain true until "stockholders" demand a different conduct.

If SUN gets a billion or so judgment it will not change.

If SUN gets a Sun Compliant JVM distributed with the Microsoft OS, it will not change.

If BE gets a billion, it will not change.

Even if AOL gets 10 billion in damages, it will not change.

It will only change when and if the courts order Microsoft to sell separate products separately and cease illegal bundling and commingling.

But, as we have seen the appellate courts can find commingling to be illegal yet the DOJ (as stupid and ignorant as they are) will refuse to prevent even proven violations from occuring.

I can not think as anything as stupid as what the DOJ has done. The DOJ has endorsed illegal activity AFTER the appellate court ruled on the issues. And, the illegal acts continue to harm consumers and the computer software industry.

And, they know it was stupid. They had to misrepresent what the law actually is in order to rationalize their decisions.

Fortunately, the DOJ only decides what cases they will bring contrary to the claim from those idiots that they decide antitrust policy for the US Government. They simply do not. They only decide what the executive branch will enforce or ignore. And, there is a very big difference.

In the US, Congress decides how the antitrust laws will read (not the DOJ). And, the courts interpret them (again, not the DOJ).

In fact, the DOJ is only given authority to enforce those laws to permit a more efficient legal system whereby violators can be kept in check without an enormous number of private antitrust law suits mucking up the courts. But, guess what? The DOJ refuses to act. And, the result is that the States try to take over some of the action. And, consumers, AOL, SUN, Burst and BE have to file their own private law suits anyway.

And, since this article relates to the EU activity, the EU must then also act to make certain that their laws are not violated as well. The EU does not decide what the US laws will restrict. But, they do decide which products can be sold in their market without being illegal. And, as was the case in the IBM antitrust case, the EU ends up being the only effective player. That may turn out to be true again. Only this time consumers and a number of major corporations are also suing for financial damanges and additional injunctions.

If you are a software developer, you should by all means be pulling for AOL in their law suit. That suit may open up an enormous number of software markets now effectively closed to you.

I fully agree.

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

What the computer software industry needs very badly is fair and open markets.

ONLY fair and open markets will bring vibrant competition.

And, that has been effectively removed from many markets as a direct result of illegal Microsoft Corporation activity.

You want to develop a better browser? Only if you do not want to be paid.

You want to develop a better media player? Only if you do not want to be paid.

You want to develop a better messaging system? Only if you do not want to be paid.

Right now there a many key markets that everyone who reads /. is precluded from participation. Only if you are willing to donate your time without compensation can you participate.

And, why is that?

It is the direct result of illegal Microsoft activity.

Developing a good product is not illegal. Forcing 400,000,000 people to buy it is.

Only idiots think applications are operating systems because that would force the sale. And, only idiots think that a branded product (assuming it is even wanted or needed by consumers) should be forced upon any of them.

Salesman try to convince customers to buy their brand.

Idiots lie like hell and demand that consumers be forced to buy it. And, if you bought any OS from Microsoft in the last 6 years or so, you were in fact forced to buy a number of key applications. And, you paid cash money for them. That is a fact.

And, because of that (if you are a developer) you have been illegally precluded from those markets. Even the idiots at the DOJ know that is true. They wanted to preclude you.

Re:drop 'em

[jorgen]

So instead they're now dependent on the whims of a bunch of high school kids who only answer to their parents?

There are plenty of companies (not run by highschool kids) to chose among if you go with linux and open source, and linux was never a high school project to begin with.

FYI, the old "bunch of highschool kids" argument is kinda obsolete.

commingling code is an illegal act

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Commingling code is an illegal act that continues to this day despite being declared illegal past all further appeals.

But, your point was about "crimes".

Microsoft is not being charged with having violated any crimes. Antitrust violations are not "crimes".

Secondly, no company has ever been prosecuted for entering any business unless the business itself is illegal (such as selling drugs).

Microsoft has been convicted of engaging in any number of acts that do violate the federal and state antitrust laws. And, many more law suits are pending regarding a number of as yet unproven illegal acts. Those include attempted monopolization of the browser market and product tying.

Microsoft may have not yet violated the antitrust laws in regard to cell phones but they clearly and absolutely have in regard to browsers, media players, instant messaging and a number of other products including window managers (yes, they paid Caldera money to get out of that case), disc compression (yes, they paid STac a pile of money for that illegal act) and others.

The only sad part is that not all of Microsoft's "proven illegal acts" have ceased yet.

YOU are still forced to buy a commingled browser. And, that is still true despite the final appellate decision declaring that act a violation of federal law.

So, after the illegal acts stop you can then argue that charges should not be brought against Microsoft until they actually engage in illegal acts. But, the truth of the matter is that no court will find anyone guilty unless they have actually violated the law.

But, if they do engage in illegal acts they absolutely should be sued. And, the illegal acts should cease. Sometimes they do not. And, in those cases additional law suits have to be filed. And, they will be.

For years Netscape did not file its own private antitrust law suit hoping that the DOJ would enforce the law for the benefit of consumers and the industry. But, we now know they failed to do so. Oh, they won the law suit then simply took instructions from the company engaged in the illegal acts and encourage futher violations of those same laws.

The result is that AOL, SUN, Burst and BE had to file their own law suits anyway. And, thanks to AOL, Netscape is still around to sue and collect damages caused to them. By the way, those damages could exceed 10 billion or so.

Actually, 400,000,000 million times $35 is $14 billion dollars. And, arguably Netscape could have earned that revenue over the last 6 years. Triple that to $42 billion as per antitrust law and even Gates will cry uncle.

A $42 billion dollar judgment is not out of the question for the AOL law suit.

In fact, AOL has asked for punitive damages as well. So, the jury can decide how much money Microsoft has to pay in order to get them to comply with the antitrust law and allow customers to decide which applications they buy and use.

You may claim you use something other than IE. But, if you bought from Ms over the last 6 years, you paid cash money for IE without any choice on your part. It was in fact a forced sale to YOU. No customer had a choice. If you bought from MS you were forced to buy IE too.

Re:if you buy Windows you paid cash for IE ..no ch

[Ozymandias_KoK]

This is kind of a stupid argument. MS clearly has the monopoly position in text editors, calculators, dialer programs, system utilites (aside from AV!) and a whole raft of other things we take for granted. You have to pay for these as part of Windows too. However, for each of these things, there are in fact other products that may be better. You are not restricted from buying or downloading them, much like browsers. Do you want a stripped OS where you have to add every single function you might use, or one that includes a lot of that stuff? How is bundling such a major crime? Every single OS out there does the exact same thing.

FWIW, MS helped themselves to market share in browsers, yes...but Netscape seems to have gone out of their way to lose it by releasing shit for a product. Anyone who blames MS for Netscape's failure is overlooking the full extent of what happened. NS was ahead up to ver 3, where they were about equivalent. NS release a ver 4 that was a shitheap and MS kept making forward progress. And that's what sealed the fates. NS screwed up ver 5 too, but it didn't really matter at that point anymore...

major killer applications are not functions

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Funny how those who violate the law always claim that forcing the sale of about the only killer application to come along in 9 years is a "function".

A browser is not a function of an OS. It performs absolutely no OS function at all.

Microsoft did not help themselves. They violated federal antitrust laws to force all consumers to buy IE.

It simply does not matter what Netscape did.

When Microsoft decided to force all customers to buy IE, the illegal bundling perfected the attempt to monopolize the browser marketplace.

You do not have the right to commit murder even if the victum has cancer as you falsely claim. It is still murder.

Re:major killer applications are not functions

[Ozymandias_KoK]

There has only been a single killer app in 9 years? That's just outright funny.

You know, I started to craft a response to your rather single-minded "logic" but based on what you've posted, and your website, it won't make any difference. You don't even really seem rational, so I am not going to bother. However, your claim that I made some false claim based on some bullshit analogy that you made is just plain stupid. If you really are a lawyer, I suspect you are quite bad at it. That probably comes across as an ad hominem attack, but really...is there any point engaging a discussion with someone who can't even craft a coherent argument based on facts? (insert "this IS slashdot!" joke here)

Re:major killer applications are not functions

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Name another application that just about everyone has to have a copy of and causes individuals to buy a computer when otherwise they would not.

That is what defines a major killer application.

And, only idiots try to fool others suggesting it is an OS function.

If you really do not know what the difference is between an OS and an application you are beyond help. Not knowing the difference would be bad enough. Lying about it so that you can defend illegal acts by a corporation is just sad.

Re:Government regulations

[XXIstCenturyBoy]

Oh it would be all good if it was like that. Nokia change the behavior at every update. My phone doesnt call 911 by pressing 08 when its locked or not. Some do it only when its unlocked. Some do it both time... And I am talking about the same model of handset mind you...

And as for HAVING to call emergency service... Tell that to the emergency service worker that tell cell user to call us at customer service to change that behavior so it doesnt do it anymore. Like if we could do it or gave a flying f*** about it for that mather. But hey, some client do call...

simple

[sirshannon]

I got tired of carrying a palm pilot in my left pants pocket and a cellphone in my right pants pocket. I got a smartphone. It was WAY too big and sucked as a phone. When these 2 problems are fixed, I'll have another.

Famous last words.

[jotaeleemeese]

I am sure they will hang in your deserted office building once the assimilation is completed.

Troll.

[jotaeleemeese]

Palm has more marketshare than WindosCE.

MS did not kill Ninetendo.

illegal bundling was NOT thrown out at all ...AOL

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

The illegal bundling issue is center stage in the AOL law suit.

AOL is also suing for all financial damages caused by the illegal act. And, they are suing for punitive damages as well.

The tying issue was "remanded" back to the trial court for futher litigation not "toss out" as was falsely claimed above. There is a very big difference.

By remanding the issue, it remains undecided.

The DOJ and the States (as well as Microsoft) decided not to further litigate the illegal tying of browsers to monopoly operating systems but AOL has taken up the issue in spades.

The tying remains illegal as does the commingling of code. And, no doubt when the jury and judge decide the AOL case, the ongoing illegal acts of Microsoft will be front and center. And, those acts include commingling found to be illegal and now past appeal but not stopped by the meaningless consent decree.

RedHat (and others) can package as they wish simply because they do not have a monopoly product that they use for the illegal bundling.

Bundling itself is not illegal. Bundling by a monopolist using monopoly products is illegal.

You would think that over the last 5-7 years a few /. readers would have learned that by now. But, they listent to the idiots from Microsoft who falsely represent the laws in order to fools others into thinking they are not in violation.

I guess some do not know the difference between commingled code and an icon. Clearly the idiots from Microsoft want consumers to think they are that ignorant. And, ignorance is the correct term.

Truly ignorant people may not know that icons have nothing to do with commingled source and binary code. But it guess even /. has a few ignorant readers as well.

Re:illegal bundling was NOT thrown out at all ...A

[geekee]

"You would think that over the last 5-7 years a few /. readers would have learned that by now. But, they listent to the idiots from Microsoft who falsely represent the laws in order to fools others into thinking they are not in violation."

If you think it's ok to for the govt. to dictate software makers what they can put in their product and then turn around and complain that the govt. is is screwing you with the DMCA, then you're a typical slashdotter who's getting what he deserves. Laws should protect the rights of individuals. Antitrust laws infringe on the rights of individuals. My point about Redhat is that if they ever dominate the market and get screwed by the govt., slashdotters won't be able to complain without showing what a bunch of hypocrites they are.

Re:illegal bundling was NOT thrown out at all ...A

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

The government is NOT dictating what vendors can put into their product.

Or, at least they should not be doing so.

By the stupid settlement the DOJ has dictated that all consumers will be forced to buy IE and the Microsoft media player. And, that a good reason why the settlement/consent decree should be overturned.

But, the point is that illegally tying products so that people like you are screwed and forced to buy other products is illegal. And, that is not telling anyone what they must put into their products. It is telling them they must sell separate products separately.

And, that is what illegal tying is all about.

So, if you rely upon the laws changing before Microsoft is acting illegally you will wait for ever.

Right now Microsoft is acting in violation of the appellate court decision that found that commingling code was illegal. Has that ceased? Did the commingling stop? If not, Microsoft is acting in violation of the federal antitrust laws. And, NO, the trial judge does not have the authority to ignore the appellate court.

She has done so. And, her decision should be appealed on that grounds along. It remains to be seen if the States will appeal it. But, any lawyer or any technologies should have the level of intelligence to know that code commingling has not ceased and that the appellate court found that act to be illegal.

Buy the way, Microsoft does not even have the right to sell any product unless it is free of legal violations. There is no "right to package as you damn well please". There is not even a right to sell anything at all. Zero. None. No such right exists.

If Microsoft is acting illegally, they can be prohibited from selling a single copy of anything.

So when you find people claiming this right or that right in their effor to rationalize illegal activity, just remember that the "right to sell what you want" does not exist what so ever. It does not exist in the US, Europe or the State of Washington. There is no such thing.

Even a patent does not give you the right to sell the product you invented. At best it only allows you to prevent others from selling. But that does not mean you can do so. And, that applies to food, drugs, you name it. No product comes with a right on the part of anyone to sell it.

This is what I mean by Microsoft fabricating fake rights and laws so they look good. There is no such right.

Last Post!

[alpg]

... there are about 5,000 people who are part of that commitee. These guys
have a hard time sorting out what day to meet, and whether to eat croissants
or doughnuts for breakfast -- let alone how to define how all these complex
layers that are going to be agreed upon.
-- Craig Burton of Novell, Network World

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...