Slashdot Mirror
EU Considering Another MS Antitrust Suit
mesozoic writes "Yahoo! News is reporting that the European Union is considering *another* antitrust suit against Microsoft, this time having to do with anticompetitive behavior in the market for mobile phone software. While I haven't seen any signs Microsoft is going to dominate the industry here in the States, cell phones are a much bigger deal in Europe, so I can understand why they'd be nervous."
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.
Hey, anything that directs resources away from "innovation" is a good thing, right?
TODO: Something witty here...
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.
this sig intentionally left blank
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?
however, I think this can be a healty attitude to take towards MS. It informs MS (and anyone else who may be getting any ideas) that their practices will NOT go unchecked. There is however a fine line between this attitude and out right "picking" on them. With thier track record though, it is hard for MS to claim that they are being picked on unfairly.
The EU competition regulator is concerned that Microsoft might take over the market for mobile phone software, according to a senior adviser to the European Commission. "Mobile phones are a very important market in Europe. The Commission is worried that Microsoft might take advantage of the strength of Windows in order to dominate in mobile phones," he said Uh, so they are suing because MS might do something? I forget what the legal term for this is, but I think this guy has a big stick up his ass. Besides, Stinger has 0 market penetration right now. Everyone is on just a big kick MSs ass because they are an easy target kick.
Just having the suits change the environment enough so that alternatives can survive. While MS has been under the Antitrust gun, it hasn't been able to crush competitors with quite the same abandon. If this keeps up long enough, there may well be a viable MS alternative shipping in volume from major manufacturers in the forseeable future.
And in furture news, "Microsoft Found 'Not-Guilty' by EU."
The reason for the lawsuit is clearly seen in the article:
.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.
.NET servers, further binding them to MS software, etc.
;)
The
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
My question is, where's the Linux based Open Source phones?
"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."
THE GOOD HUMOR MAN CAN ONLY BE PUSHED SO FAR
Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 2F18
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!)
What ever happened to boycotting.
It doesn't work.
Wouldn't the lawsuit fees be better spent switching from M$ products?
No.
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!"
We're talking here about going after Microsoft for a different set of violations in a different country. They get no slack in that case.
THE GOOD HUMOR MAN CAN ONLY BE PUSHED SO FAR
Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 2F18
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...
It's not that I'm Anti-American - I'm Pro-Freedom
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
Can someone PLEASE explain to me what the deal is with 'smartphones'?
/. every 5 minutes isn't necessary for geek survival.
I have a nokia 5160, and I can place calls with it. I can receive calls with it. I can receive text messages too. Shit, I can play nibbles on the damn thing!
WHY would I want more than that on a phone?
I've got a computer for internet access - it stays at my desk. Contrary to popular belief, checking
I have heard the excuse that some poeple want to check and reply to their email on the go - that's what a secretary is for. If not a secretary, there are a plethora of alternatives - Laptops, Wireless/Wired palm/pocketce devices and internet booths spring to mind.
Convince me we need smartphones. I just don't see it.
Desperation is a stinky cologne
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.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Sounds like the EU is trying to protect the current cell phone sw makers. They're the ones being anticompetitve. I don't see how MS's pc market gives them any leverage with cell phone makers and cell phone networks.
Vote for Pedro
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$oft empire that threatens competition in a market trying to be free. Their behavior is absolutely disgusting and unwarranted in a free market system, which is exactly why the EU must do everything they can to bring them down, because Ashcroft won't.
In Europe there are smartphones based on MS PocketPC. Some cellphones (e.g. Sony CMD-J7) also use MS Mobile Explorer for Web Browsing (which is kind of cool, because it attempts to display HTML, not only WML).
Besides, if you read the article, you will see that it talks about "suspicions" about Microsoft's plans, not its current market share in mobile phones. The EU fears that mobile phones will become like IBM-compatible PCs - commodity hardware all running the same software. Which, given Microsoft's resources and competitive strategies, seems like a very likely scenario.
still, the EU is not right
to try to fight them
If no complaint has
been raised by MS victims
who're they to fight?
Arbitrarily
picking fights over all things
is not the best plan.
Don't give me none of this "nature theme" business.
Neither KDE/Linux nor MacOSX users are forced to use bash, so your plan is doomed to fail...
I can envisage an awful lot of angry lesbians, frustrated by their MSvibrator® telling them it needs to re-boot, half-way through an orgasm.
:oS
Bill doesn't want to get on the wrong side of some of theose butch dykes.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
I work for a company in the mobile phone market, based in the UK, and theres no chance of M$ getting anywhere fast in the mobile market:))
I don't know if the EU has the muscle to stop the freight train that is .NET. With "Smart Clients" being one of the four pillars of their new platform, failure to gain market share in the luctrative European mobile phone/computing market would be a disaster for their future business plans. .NET platform may have quite a fight ahead of them.
However, with the reluctance of companies to participate in the "Safe Harbor" provisions that enable a firm to side-step the privacy laws in Europe, and the general move of European governments toward Open-Source solutions, Microsoft and the
So...pass the popcorn and step up to get good ring-side seats to this one in the next few years.
Microsoft has virtually no real penetration in the mobile phone/PDA market; Nokia/Symbian are currently destroying it. Hell, even Sendo (in which MS has a substantial stake) just withdrew their MS based phone after a couple of weeks in favour of the open source Nokia solution. It isn't even *likely* to fly.
It's far more likely that Monti (EU Competition Commissioner) is worried that the current *real* antitrust investigation into Microsoft will either not find anything or that the remedies will be knocked over in court (like most of his cases) - and he wants to have his distraction tactics ready. This way at least he can say "Forget about *that* one, we've got a whole new case against Microsoft to spend years and millions on!" and Slashdot can happily argue about that one till it looks like falling; when he can start a new investigation, probably into Microsoft failing efforts to dominate the games console market. And then there's the effort (with Media Centre) to take over the TV and stereo market.....
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.
When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
How can you prosecute a company for antitrust violations when it doesn't even have a majority of the market share?
Repeal the DMCA!
First of all in the news it says that based on the suspicion that the software giant is trying to leverage its dominance of PC operating systems into the market for mobile phone software which basically means that there is a suspicion and there is no hardcore proof. The news does (actually can) not explain which Microsoft policies cause Microsoft to use its strength on Windows platform to take over the mobile phone market. The only credible issue is the "Titanium" software, but it is not the job of Microsoft to provide the best integration for Windows with competitors' devices. Competitiors has to spend time to build quality software, instead of complaining. This is a software engineering problem. If you can not write better software than Microsoft, then don't complain.
There is also a claim by the lawyer (anonymous coward) that Microsoft is threatining mobile phone operators, but he/she fell short of explaining how, when, which? If you think about it you also realize that Microsoft can not threaten neither mobile phone operators not manufacturers. Tell me how Microsoft can threaten Nokia? Nokia does not sell PCs. There is no way Microsoft can threaten these companies.
To sum up again this news is totally bogus, it is for our amusement, making up stories about Microsoft and laughing at each others' jokes. Have fun
"While I haven't seen any signs Microsoft is going to dominate the industry here in the States.."
Well, did you see any signs when Microsoft started a browser war against the de facto standard Netscape browser back in the old days? I mean, who would have believed back then that Microsoft would be able to beat Netscape in browser war?
----
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.
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.
Whoops. It's easy to change the software on your PC, eh? Then by your definition (I assume under software you included operating systems, correct?), Microsoft doesn't actually -have- a monopoly in the PC software market? In fact, aren't you suggesting that the software manufacturers for mobile phones have -more- of a monopoly?
Pretty big hole in your little argument there.
Is Microsoft in this business (they label it "CE/Mobility") because they want to make a profit in this business? Or are they taking advantage of other strengths of their company to dominate the new sector?
Microsoft's recent Form 10-Q shows that, between June 1 and September 30, 2002, Microsoft lost $33M (U.S. dollars) on revenues of $17M in this part of their business. (Look for the second occurance of "CE/Mobility", the one under "Three months ending September 30" and "2002," about halfway down the page.) In other words, they spent a total of about $50M (in three months!), and lost almost three dollars for every dollar they spent.
This isn't proof by any means; but it's one interesting test in trying to decide Microsoft's corporate intentions.
P.S.: This rate may represent Microsoft scaling back their efforts! From June 1 to September 30, 2001, Microsoft lost $48M on revenues of $14M; so a total expenditure of $62M, or more than four dollars for ever one they made. Remember that Windows CE devices started shipping in early 1997; this is not a new business for them, but one that's almost six years old.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
what about just leaving them alone and trying to sell their products?
I love MS as much as the next guy here on /., and while I partially agree with this suit, the market still has the final word to say.
I submitted a while ago a story about Microsoft's attempt at interactive TV here in Portugal. It got rejected, but the point here is that it failed. Microsoft's testbed for iTV failed because the problems we have today with windows translated to the same problems with the MS iTV's software. The service was also a bit expensive (whether or not related to the MS tax), the set top box crashed a lot, and few saw the benefits of iTV. We are a bit behind europe in smoe areas, but in technology we are at about the same level so it was not a people's problem. (in a country of 10 million there are about 7 or 8 million cellphones; our ATM system allows for any kind of bank operation in any bank's ATM from withdrawing money to buying train tickets to paying the telephone or electricity bills; we have a nation-wide non-stop automated system for paying the highway toll).
MS failed because of the product they were trying to sell wasn't what the people wanted, they wanted to make us use the TV as a computer but we didn't. When they come with this cellphoneOS, let the people decide. Say what you want about mobile internet, games, messengers, digital built-in cameras, and all the rest of the crap, that while make cool geek toys (which I like to play with), the vast majority just wants to call someone.
And it's not going to be easy to de-throne the appeal Nokia has.
Microsoft may be the monopoly in computer operating systems and Office suits, but in other ponds they are the little fish.
The point isn't that microsoft is moving into another market, they are allowed to do that. But they aren't allowed to use the monopoly they have to give them leverage in that market. They could do this with windows if it wasn't a monopoly, but it is, so if they tightly integrate their cell phone software with the OS. MORE SPECIFICALLY IF THEY ADD EXTENSIONS TO THEIR EMAIL SOFTWARE THAT DEGRADES THE QUALITY OF CONNECTIVITY TO OTHER CELL SYSTEMS. That is anti-competative and illegal. Microsoft can expand into new areas, but they can't intentionally use propriatary standards that block out the competition on the windows side, or the other monopolies they've already illegally used their windows monopoly to gain. No they don't have a monopoly in the cell phone market yet, the whole point is to PREVENT it from happening by stopping this illegal practice BEFORE it's too late.
As M$ would probably point out, group boycotts are illegal under American antitrust law.
Norman Hawker Western Michigan University
I agree completely. And no, I'm not American and I don't like Bush either.
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.
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...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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?
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?
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.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
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.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
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.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
Where has anyone said Microsoft can not be in the business? No where. No one has said that.
The only restriction is that Microsoft must act legally and NOT illegally.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
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?"
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.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
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?
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
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.
Money for nothing, pix for free
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?
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?
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?
HTTP/1.1 400
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!
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
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.
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.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
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.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
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.
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.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
What the computer software industry needs very badly is fair and open markets.
/. is precluded from participation. Only if you are willing to donate your time without compensation can you participate.
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
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.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
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.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
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.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
The illegal bundling issue is center stage in the AOL law suit.
/. 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.
/. has a few ignorant readers as well.
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
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
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
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.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best