Slashdot Mirror
EU Says Microsoft's Abuses Are Ongoing
levell writes "Although the legal difficulties Microsoft was having in the US seem to be drawing to a close, it's not yet over in the EU. In this story, the BBC reports that the EU says it is still abusing its monopoly with Windows Media Player, and perhaps more interestingly from a Linux point of view, also in the low-end server market. The story is also being covered on CNN, Ananova, Reuters, etc." The EU's press release is informative.
They need to be split, and now. Just my opinion...
if MS had to cease Eurpoean operations like SCO did. It would cause them to lose a huge chunk of sales and cause their stock to sink like a rock. In addition, US companies with European branches may become wary of buying from Microsoft, hopefully allowing its competitors to gain some ground lost by MS abusing its monopoly.
Microsoft will have to pay a fine of tens of millions of dollars if it does not implement the remedies.
Big freaking deal
They'll just shrug, pay the fine, and continue as before. Or will the EU undertake further actions against MS, if they persist in these practices even after paying the fines?
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In theory, how much control does the EU have over Microsoft? I know they talked about separating WMP from Windows or bundling other media players with Windows. Could they force Microsoft to take even more drastic measures (such as breaking up the company's overseas operations)?
I have to agree with the title of the last post. I tend to believe that the EU shouldn't hold it against MS for including a media player with their operating system. Granted, it should be able to be uninstalled, but why give them grief just b/c they added a feature. If real and quicktime were better products, they would gain more of a widespread use/following. Look at MP3 players for your desktop -- there is a reason that Winamp is so popular. It's just a better alternative.
be able to survive one attack but multiple attacks may fell it. Maybe Asia can go next.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
more legal action. Now. How many times does the dancing monkeyboy have to go right in the middle of the carpet before someone will rub his nose in it?
This isn't about the EU wanting to 'make a difference'. This is about the EU wanting MS to abide by the laws it is trading (in the EU) under.
yes but what is better for a society: consistently bad, or inconsitently not bad!
The interesting thing about the forthcoming EU fine (they're _not_ going to escape it at this stage) is that they've got a history of setting the size of the fine at levels commensurate with the wrong-doing and size of the company concerned. In the case of Microsoft, this could well mean more than a billion dollars.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
That one is good punishment. Because they abused their low end desktop monopoly, force them to buy their competitor's media players and include them all without charge. Ogg Vorbis could set a reasonable price for prcompiled binarys, I'm sure. Everyone but Microsoft would win.
More than that, I like their reesoning about leveraging. It was as simple to prove as asking people buying low end servers for their low end desktops if "interoperability" and secret interfaces made a difference in their purchasing. Bingo, nothing meritorius there, just a bunch of crap they won't share and a dominant market position.
The proposed solution, to force M$ to open up their interfaces is great stuff. Less time would have to be dedicated to deciphering their crap. I wonder if they can force NTFS open too, after all the inability to write to the file system is a hinderence.
M$ may try to wriggle out of this by making EU only software that plays nice, but they won't get far. They can not escape the black eye solid reasoning is giving them. Solid reasoning from impartial parties and published with all the resources of a large govenment.
It's just more reason to ditch M$ all together. Who needs a low end desktop anyway? That would be the best thing of all.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I use MediaPlayer, and there's nothing special about it whatsoever. I use it simply because it works most of the time, and most importantly, I haven't seen ANYTHING better.
If there was something better out there, I'd use it.
WinAMP is buggy and has a clumsy interface, it plays mpegs back with incorrect colors sometimes, for instance.
Quicktime is a crippled piece of crap and I'm not going to cut Apple a cheque just to see if it's better.
The less said about RealPlayer, the better.
Everything else either has annoying spyware or nagscreens or missing features. They can pass all the laws they want saying that MSFT cannot ship WMP with Windows, and it'll be the first thing I download and install after setting up a box. Nothing else works right.
There's a HUGE opportunity, as I see it, to create something better. I'd be all over it, and so, I'm sure, would many others. But, know what? I wouldnt pay for it. They can make their money through licensing encoders to content providers, not by shoving ads in my face or charging me a subscription.
I feel the same way about the browser thing. I'm not forced to use IE, I only do so because it works and theres no compelling reason to install something else - except for goofy ideological arguments about Free vs free.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Ahhh, but they could go up to apple and say. Don't do XXXX or YYYY, and if you do then the next version of Office for the Mac will be years late and run like crap.
They have hung that over Apples head for a long time. That is what kept IE on the Mac instead of Netscape for many years.
Also what exactly is the marketshare for Macintosh systems these days? Even the graphic shops I go in to are starting to use Wintel machines (not that I think they should use them).
As far as Linux goes, as long as it is free and has the large number of developers working on it, it will continue to make inroads in to Microsoft's monopoly. This is ONLY because people are generally cheap. For the life of me I can't get people to try out OpenOffice, but once I explain that Microsoft Office will cost them >$200.00, suddenly they want to take a long hard look at it.
I fully expect Microsoft to do everything they can to protect their monopoly, as they have done so in the past. Their history has shown that they are not above breaking laws to continue their stranglehold on the software industry, however at this point and time they have little threat of Linux, Apple, OpenOffice on the desktop or office level. This will probably change once more governments start using free software, but at this time they are still the 800 pound gorilla. It also shows why they fight so hard not to loose any government business to Linux.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The only anti-competitive Microsoft action that is relevant to this is keeping secret the file and streaming formats used by Media Player
I don't believe the EU really wants those opened, as this would hurt DRM, which the EU is generally sympathetic to.
There is nothing wrong with including a media player in an operating system, any more than including a file browser, or a set of printer drivers. If they were operating a "Windows ain't done till RealPlayer won't run" policy that would be different, but I've not heard that alleged.
Microsoft's real offenses are, as ever, in the fields of dishonest marketing FUD and putting pressure on third parties to disfavour competitors. Most of which is quite likely to be technically legal, at least to the extent that can be proved.
I fear this move is motivated by a general US-bashing sentiment rather than any sincere grievance. While it is possible that Free Software could benefit as a side effect of a transatlantic trade war, the costs would probably outweigh the benefit.
just take SMB as an example
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Of all the areas to attack them on, the Media Player is a strange one.
Firstly, it is probably the best out of Real Player and Quicktime so really I cannot see anyone wanting to swap Media Player for a crappy RP which pops up every two minutes and basically complains if you don't use it or upgrade it! Quicktime isn't really a big player in any event on the PC for any formats really. So, even if they do succeed in getting Media Player as something you have to 'opt in' to installing I'd guess that the experienced users won't use RP or QT.
Secondly, Media Player is integral to Windows - certainly XP. From the Windows Explorer you can preview media, view films, burn CD's etc etc with it. Ok, I suppose you could take out this functionality but as someone who uses it a lot I don't see why -I- should have my OS experience reduced just so I can get Real Player telling me I have messages every few hours.
Thirdly, as I think some of the other posters have said, there is a gradual blurring between PCs and TVs/hi fi nowadays and it is realistic to be able to have a media player as part of the OS.
I know I will be shot down for this, but the target market for Windows doesn't want to have to select which media player they want - most people won't have a clue anyway - they just want to go to 'My Music' and click on the MP3 and listen to some music whilst they browse the web or whatever.
They certainly have abused their monopoly, but this is just a typical EU style charge (I live in England). A lot of hot air, lots of reports, a good idea but poorly enacted.
Microsoft can afford to ignore this, and they'll just pay the fine and 'look at how we can open up' and do nothing.
The EU cannot stop them trading in the EU at all! Anyone who seriously thinks that is plain daft! I mean, I guess around 95%+ of PC's etc run MS software and if they have to stop trading it would have such a serious impact on business it simply won't happen!
Try not to be so pro-US that you lose sight of reality.
Tax rates in the EU are not 'very high'--in fact, they are in line with the rest of the world. It's just the base US tax rate is comparitively low. When you look at the taxes being raised by the destitute states to make up for the shortfall in revenue caused by the Administration's foolish and useless economic policies, I'm sure tax rates in places like California, New York and Massachusetts come very close to those which an EU citizen would pay. And they're getting high-quality health care and a social safety net that is second to none. For the high taxes paid by US citizens, they continue to see cuts in services and a crumbling safety net.
Unemployment is also not 'very high', as you suggest. I'd suggest taking a look at the US' rapidly rising unemployment rate, a value that shows no signs of declining while Mr. Bush and his Administration give tax cuts to those who need it least while leaving the vast majority of the populace with less and less money to spend and the constant fear of layoffs or other job losses.
Before you go trumpeting your precious US GDP and its far superior spending power, I suggest you check your facts.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
You can have "one-stop shop" without bundling IE and WMP.
Here's the idea: M$ would license their barebone core OS (or whatever you call it) and any company could ship their own OS bundle, "powered by Windows technology" kinda thing. You would have AOL Windows (with ICQ, WinAmp bundled), Real Windows (with Real Player).
How's that?
The exercise of pre existing power does not represent an expansion of government power.
The law is wrong. It should be changed.
No, anti-competitive practices are wrong. They put people out of business - that's means people lose jobs and have their lives fucked around. Anti-competitive practices are also designed to bring more than fair market value for goods and services. In the end, everyone pays for them. If a free market is good, then what Microsfoft does is very bad. Preventing this kind of racketeering is as good a government exercise as the prevention of murder or stock fraud. Yes, economic upheaval can be fatal.
Like you, I have my doubts about the way government regualtion plays out. In the case of phone and electric service, we are moving toward unregulated but protected monopolies, the very worst case. In automobiles, we have government protection and even cash bailouts. In steel, there's essentially a monopoly poorly protected against forgein makers. In software, we have the spectical of government violating all purchasing sense and sole sourcing six years worth of purchasing to some of the worst software available.
The intent, especially in the Microsoft case, is correct. Don't confuse intent with the way Anti-trust laws are not followed through perverted.
Doing nothing does just that and that might be fatal for the US computer industry. The glass making industry never gained significant competion in the US, did it? It took the invention of a whole new light material, plastic, and a shipping revolution to bring competition to bottle making. If Microsoft is uninhibited, they might be might be able to pull off Paladium, which would end all software and hardware competition on just about all platforms. It is by no means certian that chip makers will be able to resist Paladium in the commodity market. The alternatives are expensive custom hardware from makers like Sun, worth it to companies but not individuals. The xbox is a peek into Microsfoft's dream world. The implications for all software and hardware makers are obvious.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
C'mon /.ers... I've about had it with the M$ legal battles.
If you are reading this page, then most likely:
a) You are not using Windows, so you really don't give a shit about M$ anyway (or the legal system, but I digress...) or
b) You are more than capable of removing/adding/modifying just about anything you want on your boxen.
Let's be honest: all M$ did was aggressively market their products. To sue them for acting like capitalists is be like trying to force General Motors affiliates to stop offering GMAC financing, or trying to force Toyota to stop offering Toyota brand CD players in their new vehicles.
I see more and more consumer products coming out with Linux installed -- should we sue them if a particular web browser is included in that installatoin? No.. we just remove it, ignore it, or use it. The same should apply to M$. I personally hate their Media player, and I refuse to use it. It took me a matter of minutes to D/L and install my favorite player, and I did it all without legal representation.
That from http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p _action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/03/1150%7C0%7CRAPID&lg=EN ;
hey note theres a .ksh in the URL - think they run korn shell cgi's in brussels? :)
Anyway that says OPEN YOUR API TOTALLY MS or face punishmnet. GREAT NEWS for interoperability! Samba and dozens of other programs will benefit immensely.
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
You do not understand. It is difficult to compete because we cannot provide our services on an equal footing with Microsoft because they won't tell us how to interoperate with their systems. If we can't interoperate with MS systems, and everyone else is using MS systems, then open source options aren't really viable, are they?
(Well, in some cases we are viable -- but only because MS wasn't able to stop all the open standards. Look where all of the major open-source successes have been:
If you substituted ``Microsoft`` with ``Big Tobacco``, would you change your mind?
You're missing the fact that people have been locked into using MS-only systems and *even if they wanted to* would find it very hard to stop. Think about it: they, in effect, provide a significant proportion of our computing infrastructure -- and are preventing anyone from competing with them by not disclosing the vital inferface information about the systems they built that others would need to compete.
They work very hard to maintain the monopoly stranglehold they have created. They bombard the young and impressionable with advertising in print, on television, on billboards. They push ``cheap`` versions of their product on impressional students in schools and universities.
They lobby govenments around the world to say "You should let project leaders make their own choice!" when it comes to choosing between a MS or OSS deployment -- whilst simultaneously doing their utmost to prevent any OSS option from becoming viable.
"Just educate people to do something else" you say. If only it were that easy. To stop smoking is a painful and difficult task at the best of times; divorcing yourself of the MS infrastructure that entangles everything we do is no different.
Microsoft has a monopoly. Nobody disputes that fact. They are using their monopoly position to extend their influence and take control of new markets. This is also not in dispute.
If the United States refuses to take substantive action, then that's their choice. But you're starting to hurt *us* now, we will not stand idly by. The EU, our representatives, have asked Microsoft nicely, patiently, to cease their damaging practices. Three times, they told them stop! And yet they persist, relentlessly.
Well, no more. We're done asking.
All industries will consolidate into monopolies if left unchecked.
I'm not convinced of this. A monopoly is temporary as it drives prices above what people are willing to deal with. This is already occuring with Microsoft, and true competitors are appearing in the form of Red Hat, Lindows, Apple, and Sun, for example. Left to regular market forces, Microsoft's days are truly numbered (how can they compete with Linux, which is Free, and Mac OS X, which runs rings around Windows on the desktop, and Solaris 9, which runs rings around Windows on the server?).
The key is that there is a low barrier to entry to starting a new business or concieving a new product. Regulation only increases those barriers, making long-lasting monopolies not only more likely but much more persistent.
For example, regulation nearly destroyed the American auto industry more than once, drove many smaller makers out of business, and, for a while, left only three manufacturers in the U.S.A., until the Japanese, Germans, and Koreans brought in new competiton. Now, the Big 3 have to compete with better Japanese cars manufactured in Indiana, which has done wonders for the quality of American cars. Instead of competition driving rapid innovation in cars, everyone had to wait 30 years for the industry to really recover from 1970's regulations (not until the late 1990s were American cars any good).
Regulation serves to preserve the status quo rather then truly accomplish the good intentions that went into the regulations. My intuition is that the free market, when mostly left alone, does work, and that the federal government's intrusion does more long-term harm than good.
The monopolies you mention (OPEC, DeBeers, and the RIAA), are all concerning things that are truly unessential (I'm serious). High oil prices would lead to faster adoption of alternative energy (e.g., the sun!). DeBeer's diamonds are valuable only to superficial people (ooh, sparkley), even then artificial diamonds or alternative gems are viable in a healthy market. The RIAA is relevant only in the context of their nearly obselecent business model (there is a great Heinlein quote that appears now and then about this--no business has a right to the status quo).
Additionally, regulation alters the balance of power between corporations, citizens/consumers, and the government. Nearly always, regulation is in favor of corporations and the government (meeting regulations requires tons of money and bureaucracy).
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin