Slashdot Mirror
MS Faces Hard Sell in EU Antitrust Case
juicy_pants writes "The software giant emerged virtually unscathed in November from an eight-year battle with U.S. federal and state authorities over how its violations of antitrust laws should be rectified. But it may not fare as well in another major antitrust case, now entering its final phase at European Union headquarters in Brussels."
The Justice Department released today the long awaited upgrade to the "Lawsuit `92" This update will fix the "Well there is always Linux" bug, and the ever persistant crashing or the case's funding.
There are no gods but ourselves.
Mario Monti, the EU competition comissioner is a real ball-buster. MS will have more trouble "buying" the trust of the Eurocrats than they did in the US. It will just be interesting to see what they end up doing.
BTW, when I say "US", I refer, of course, to the administration, not the citizens.
Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules.
MS will be found guilty and given the biggest fine ever. MS appeal - and the appeal process takes forever - RealPlayer fades away (nobody notices or cares)- Bill Gates donates $100M to fight AIDS in eastern Europe and is lauded as Europe's hero, a selfless white knight whose moral integrity should never be questioned again.
'Be the change you want to see in the world' - Al Gore
Yeh they really blew it with that Opera attack.
Where exactly was the anti-trust officer when Microsoft's websites were sending Opera bad style sheets? Isn't this exactly the sort of thing he was appointed to prevent?
So they proved to the world that the enforcement officer was just a sham concession.
Also another question. If MS can't see anything morally wrong between throwing a bad style sheet to disadvantage a competitor, how do we know that Microsoft doesn't also make the cache a little slower for Oracle, or the sockets a little slower when connecting to Sun?
I mean if they did that to code that we can see, what the hell are they doing with the code we can't see in Windows?
But they couldn't figure out how to convert US dollars to Euros...
:)
Swap the Dollar symbol for the Euro symbol, like everyone else, surely!
-MT.
EU should require that file formats being used in software sold in Europe are publically documented in full to prevent the twisted (and existing) situation where customers are required to unnecessary buy upgrades for their software when other parts of the whole environment are made obsolete. Users should never be forced to pay just to continue accessing their own data. That would go a long way towards solving the root of the problem, instead of only chasing the ever-changing symptoms. Such requirement would also be totally fair since the real innovation lies in developing new features and ideas on manipulating the data and not in intentionally obscured ways of putting strings of data on a file.
Also, Microsoft's anti-competitive power and their ability to use it is not just about Windows and its ever-mutating versions. Having some government geeks take a peek at the OS "shared source" does nothing to guarantee a competitive marketplace. It's about the apps. Requiring standards compliance allows the all suitable, competitively priced and well-supported software to succeed yet without locking anyone out of the market.
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
"Not that the US really does, but M$ is really a huge and powerfull company. It's value to our economy is enormous."
Do you really think so? I don't.
For a few reasons:
firstly the various companies (Netscape, Novell, Real etc.) that they have killed or are attempting to kill are all US companies, so success or failure in killing them doesn't help the US.
Secondly, they have 40 billion tied up in defensive investments and cash - thats dead money in the US economy.
Thirdly, they are no different from Wang, Polaroid or any other large company thats had success and simply churns the same old ideas. If Wang was allowed to lock us into wordprocessors, we would never have had the PC. If polaroid locked us into instant cameras, we would never have had the digital camera and so on. Who knows how many great new ideas would have come out if the PC software market was not locked down.
Fourthly, a large chunk of that money is going on foreign subsidies in markets where Microsoft isn't strong and on new development centers in India and China. They're training the US's future competition just as much as the next major US corp.
Fifth, the License 6 money came from markets where Microsoft dominates, which for the most part means they took it straight out of US IT budgets (their biggest market).
They contributed to the wave of IT sackings, but they don't pick up the unemployment cheques.
Sixth, these license revenue tricks makes their earnings look better, so US NASDAQ money goes into Microsoft shares instead of other NASDAQ startups. Those other companies may be the *next* Microsoft.
So no, I don't think this is healthy, even for the US.
> I doubt the EU will be as lenient as the US has been...
... whose past victims include General Electric Co.'s legendary former chairman Jack Welch (from the article)
MS has been spending a lot of time and $ and lobbying in Washington to handle the anti trust suit domestically, and they've been very successful. However, apparently, even with that money and power MS can't handle European politics.
>
The article is talking about Honeywell acquisition right? MS is becoming a big player in Washington, but I'm guessing that GE is still a bigger player in Washington and the world politics. They couldn't make EU to say "Yes", so it'll be tough for MS. Of course, it's not that I'm taking their (MS) side though.
Maybe I'm being too cynical but I seriously doubt anything will change.
The worst that will happen from MS's POV is that they'll waste a bunch of money on lawyers and maybe pay a big fine...and *possibly* have to publish documentation for some stuff they don't currently publish.
I'm pretty sure it will be a harder punishment than the US gave them but it won't be enough to hurt.
Nothing will change, just like nothing has changed since the US anti-trust stuff.
All the anti-MS cases so far have focused upon the fact that Microsoft bundles software with its OS. There is another, more serious matter going on though: Try to buy an A-brand laptop these days without Windows. It is virtually impossible.
Microsoft's OEM license differs from the normal Windows XP license in that it shifts the refund burden upon the manufacturer. If, by chance or design, the manufacturer does not want to give you a refund for Windows, you are stuck with a top-dollar license for an OS you are never going to use. Microsoft cannot be blamed, because it is apparently the free choice of the manufacturers to ship whatever they want with their laptops.
In Europe, there are laws against bundled sales. Basically, they say that you can't force a consumer to buy a product A when buying a product B. While these laws would certainly inhibit Microsoft from bundling their software with their OS, it does _not_ stop laptop manufacturers from bundling the OS with the hardware. Why not? Well, let's do the math:
An exception to this bundled sales law states that, if a retailer has less than 30% of both markets (in this case the retailer is, say, Sony and the markets are the OS- and laptop-markets) then, the retailer _can_ bundle products. So, if all the laptop manufacturers ship Windows with their product, that is perfectly legal, as long as no single manufacturer grabs more than 30% of the laptop market. Divide and conquer.
Of course, since nearly all laptop sales are from said big manufacturers, somewhere along this line, the consumer is screwed. It boils down to the choice of buying either a B-brand laptop without Windows or an A-brand laptop, at the cost of a voluntary 260 euro donation to Microsoft. This is immoral. It is however not illegal. Shouldn't it be?