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 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
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.
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
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!"
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
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.
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.
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.....
"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.
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.
.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.
The companies that have been using the Windows Smartphone, now known as Windows CE
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.
--
\ Christian A Strømmen
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.
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.
~Idarubicin
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..
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
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.
.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.
If
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
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
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
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
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
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.
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