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.
it's about time the EU did something about this. i'm presuming they wanted to wait until the US actions were more or less finished before they jumped in. then again, knowing the EU, it's probably just taken them this long to write the proposal (and have it seconded, translated, amended, seconded, yada).
All I Want For Christmas Is My Constitutional Rights
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 continues anti-trust practices! We now take you to your regularly scheduled program. GO EU! JAV
Italy, Spain, and Britian want to bomb Redmond, sightings concerns for world security and the fact Gates may be building WMD's. France and Germany would like negotiations to continue and use UN inspectors to search/inspect Microsoft facilities.
Well, my 17" TiBook runs loops around Microsoft, all without violating anti-trust laws! Sure it costs $3400, but its performance is on par with a $859 Dell notebook! And don't get me started on its thinness and sleakness! Sure it's huge and unportable, but at least it's thin! Thank god Apple realizes that thinness is a far more important feature than performance!
Do you know what the best thing about OS X is? It has all the features that Windows has, including a built in browser and media player, but it's not considered to be anticompetive! Why? Because it doesn't have as much market share, and Apple is the "little guy"!! Yay! Yay! Yay! GO APPLE!
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...
Sure they have a monopoly, ie so dominant market share that they could do just about what ever they wish if there weren't anti-monopoly laws.
Like, if MS required every big computer maker to actively hamper using linux on their machines or they wouldn't give them OEM Windows license, how many of the computer makers could affort to decline without going out of business very fast? Or if they wouldn't approve (XP style) any drivers or give DirectX support for any graphcis card maker that didn't keep it's specs secret and release drivers for Win only.
So I'd say it's definitely a monopoly, because only anti-monopoly laws are preventing them from doing stuff like above.
The EU represents the 2nd largest trade area on the planet, and can fine companies who wish to trade in the EU who break competition rules in the EU. And when people next go "that won't hurt MS" remember that the fine is proportionate to the market and the level of control.
So how about a fine equal to the sales over the period of the infringement. And restrictions on the sale of MS products.
And the best bit is that the EU actually has a spine here as its a great chance to piss of a US company, which lets face it they are hardly going to resist.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Thanks to the 'wonderful' computing monoculture that has developed, we are at the mercy of the Redmond monster. So what if the EU fines them, they have $50 billion (US) in the bank to deal with such 'troublesome quarrels'.
The only way the beast can be stopped is a change in technology, such as the way IBM was finally put down (thanks to a creature of their own development, no less).
It isn't Microsoft that's initially to blame for this monoculture, it's the massive numbers of PHB's who subscribe to the 'Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft' (or IBM in the old days) mentality that permeates IT purchasing.
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)?
No it isn't.
It's vague and makes a few general allegations, but provides not even a hint of specifics or proof.
An overwhelming majority of customers responding to this market enquiry highlighted that Microsoft's non-disclosure of interface information - necessary for competing servers to properly "talk" with Windows PCs and servers - did indeed artificially alter their choice in favour of Microsoft's server products.
To "talk" with windows PCs? Huh? You mean SMB? ODBC? DCOM? Oh wait, those are all known.
They must be talking about ActiveDirectory, right? That's more of a nice new feature than a necessity for business. Will it be the case that every new feature MSFT comes up with must be given away to all?
The Media Player thing is stupid too. It's already "uncoupled" from the OS. You need not install or use it, they even made a special little control panel applet to "uninstall" it. If someone made a better media player, I'd be using it right now.
If the EU wanted to actually make a difference, and not headlines, they'd push linux in their own governments. THEY set the standard everyone follows. People use excel, word and access because that's what the federales use.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Will their inspectors actually be able to find WMP?
HH
--
I can use mozilla as my (default) browser if I want to, or play mpgs per default with quicktime. If red hat had a monopoly-like market share, then shipping a free media player (the KmovieKplayer 9) would be monopoly abuse because it would limit sales of 3rd party media players?
And if microsoft would have media player on a separate download/cd people would buy Real's player? Even if microsoft would give it away? Or can't they give it away because that too is monopoly abuse? Is the "abuse" from microsoft really caused to any major extent by "features" in their products? Don't think so...
Did that sound pro m$? I better put the flameproof suit on.
Quicktime isn't a file format as such, and there's way more to it than the player which most end-users see. Quicktime is a full media API, the first one that I'm aware of (though I imagine someone will correct me there - perhaps an SGI user?).
An example of a Quicktime use. An old Mac freeware app I wrote, Startupfrills, set a startup picture to show as a Mac booted up. It could handle JPEG, GIF, PNG, TIFF, TGA...you name it. And I never wrote a single line of image format-handling code. Just told Quicktime that I had a media file and would like an image data structure please. The same can be done for movie file formats, sound...a full blown multimedia API.
A better analogy in the MS world would be DirectShow. Not that I've done any DirectX development, but as I understand it you can add support for new file formats to the existing MS APIs via DirectShow filters. From then on, your MS API-based media app can make use of the new file format without ever knowing what it is.
Cheers,
Ian
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
I was going to mod you as Troll, but since you seemed so concerned about your precious Karma, I'll reply instead.
...to include a product that is evolving with technology to 'put down' legacy media players??
Realplayer has certainly tried to beat them in the realm of streaming content, but due to such little things as shit for quality and lack of content, they didn't do so well.
That's because M$ was able to push their format as a result of their monopoly. You're confusing the result with the cause.
Quicktime has really always been a Mac format,...
Bullshit. It runs on Windows & OS X which is BSD-based. Hardly a Mac-only (old style) product.
what legacy products???
Take a look at what Microsoft has done to other products as a result of their monopoly (Netscape, Lotus, Sybase) and try to learn something from History.
there's no place like ~
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.
No chance of any competition in that model. Ever.
A big danger is DRM being added into the chain, then Microsoft would have 100% say over who makes files, who reads files, when and where they can read files, and who can make programs that read, write or modify files. And just to make the lock-in complete, 100% control over determining the life span of the file format. No more 100 year old archives.
If the EU starts down that path by using encumbered file formats, it steps on the rights of countries where access to government information is a constitutional right. Sweden and Finland are two such countries where information has been open by default as part of the constitution. There may be other countries, but even countries with weaker freedom of information need to use open formats.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Dude, take a look around. Microsoft is selling real computer HARDWARE now. You might argue that this is no different from Apple, but Apple doesn't have its own internet service, game box, news network, major Office package, CRM, media center software, tablet PC OS, Palm platform, enterprise server solution... I could go on and on. The real deal is that monopolies do not protect us from market abuses like ill-planned software. Only good competition can do that. That's why the litigation is so important, and we can thank Teddy Roosevelt for that.
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.
It has all the features that Windows has
I knew there was a reason I hadn't bought one
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Microsoft bundles things like IE and WMP so users have a browser and media player when they install their own OS. Taking them out is not the solution, since many will be left without such things. Forcing the company to stick competitors products in their own product is not necessarily the way to go, but is perhaps a solution to all the bitching and moaning going on.
Should KDE be forced to remove Konquerer or its various KDE-installed media players? Sure, there's other choices outside the KDE RPMs (or whatever distribution method you use), but people have a choice of OSes, too - don't install it and install linux instead.
This whole thing has gotten out of hand, IMO. I guess if a company is successful, they obviously must be doing something illegal, huh?
This confirms the Commission's preliminary conclusion that Microsoft's tying of Windows Media Player to the Windows operating system weakens competition on the merits, stifles product innovation, and ultimately reduces consumer choice.
Well... here is my take...
Users like one-stop shopping. You buy a computer, you can surf the web, you can listen to music, you can play games, you can do all that stuff without having to first hook up to the Internet to download even *more* stuff or buy even *more* stuff to make it work like you expect that it should.
Few things I have ever seen infuriate a customer more than buying something and then realizing that what they bought was incomplete and that they have to get/buy even more stuff to make it do what they want.
The inclusion of IE in Windows was a big hullabaloo. At the time it was introduced, it was very much inferior to the other offerings out there, but did allow the user to browse the web. So, Microsoft saw that a browser with extentions could replace the file/system viewer Explorer so they merged the two things - far easier to have one thing that does both than have two development teams doing basically the same things maintaining two seperate code bases. That's why IE became integral to the OS - because it was also the viewer for everything from the file system to the control panel to a file viewer. Removing IE would remove the capability to do any of that.
Having IE bundled didn't prevent you from loading any other browser that was your favorite, but it did offer (some say) superior Internet Browser features to others at the time so users felt little reason to use anything else. It was good enough for users, they didn't have to get/buy more software to make their pooter work so they used it. Very simple.
Same with MediaPlayer. Users expect to be able to listen to music or play videos on their computer now from the instant they plug it into the wall. Microsoft delivers a way for them to do it. They improve it, and now it is "good enough" for most folks and they don't have to get/buy something extra to have this functionality. Very simple.
Personally, I wouldn't use/buy ANY computer that didn't come bundled with some form of web browser and a media player of some sort. Very frequently, no matter the OS I choose, the one that comes bundled is good enough to do exactly what I want to do (I'm not an audiophile and I don't have special web browsing needs like special sites that are browser specific. I do like WinAMP better than MediaPlayer though so I tend to install it on all the Windows boxes I use but the default stuff delivered with whatever Linux distro that I have loaded is good enough.)
So, does it stifle competition? I guess it does in the way that there is no need for me to buy yet-another DVD viewer program for my PS2. (Where is all the hubbub about that? The PS2 is in a very dominant position in that market.) However, these functions are becoming basic services that *have* to be delivered with an OS these days for the common users.
Again, most users just want to use what they buy without additional fuss (having to get even more stuff to make it work in basic functions like web browsing and playing music/videos).
In some ways, computer OSs these days are evolving more towards set-top boxes in many ways as the list of "basic services" the thing has to provide become longer and longer. There was a time when listening to music, watching videos, and such things were add-ons. You got these apps when you bought a video card or a sound card. Today, most users consider these to be basic functionality rather than add-ons. An OS that does not deliver these services in at least some basic capacity will not succeed. All the Linux distros know this as well and likewise deliver these basic services.
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
How is it that Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and Microsoft Outlook can come out of nowhere and domininate before anyone can blink? Why is it that many OEMs get queasy when customers ask about Windows-free computers? Why is it that the only growing software companies do so by packaging otherwise free products? Why is it that Microsoft's means of competing against Linux are through the legal system via SCO rather than competing in the free market?
Microsoft are an abberation--a cancer--on the world's markets and governments. When corporations become more powerful than their governments, the trump card lies with the people. If the governments won't or can't respond, then consumers everywhere need to make a conscience decision to support diversity, competition, and freedom.
Each purchase of a Microsoft product is a vote for a proprietary technocracy with a Microsoft Certified ruling class. Do you really want that? I don't!
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
From the EU's press release:
"As regards remedies, the Commission has provisionally identified the core disclosure obligations that would be indispensable for Microsoft's competitors in low-end servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. Microsoft would be obliged to reveal the necessary interface information so that rival vendors of low-end servers are able to compete on a level playing-field with Microsoft."
So...Samba benefits. Anyone trying to interoperate with Exchange benefits (I'd presume MAPI would be one of the protocols). People trying to do integration with Active Directory Services benefit. That's the real meat of the notice. The media player is attracting attention, but it's not the most important half by far.
Cheers,
Ian
EU budget decifit? What EU budget deficit? This is just another of those anti-EU scare stories. The EU as an institution isn't able to run a budget deficit, because the tab for whatever it spends is picked up by the member states (and with a total bugdet running at around 1% of the EU's GDP, that's not too much of a burden).
Now it's true that many EU member states are running budget deficits (what country isn't these days) but that's entirely independent, and certainly the actions of the EU commission will not be motivated by the marginal effect on the budget deficits of individual countries.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
Go ahead and force MS to sell those in the EU a copy w/o WMP. Now EU users will be forced to pay $30 to $40 to Real, Music Match, Quicktime, etc. to get the same functionality they get for free with WMP.
You don't get it. Do you really think WMP, IE, etc are all free? THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE PRICE OF WINDOWS!
Microsoft has been doing the same thing for many years. Anyone remeber Stacker?
They find a successful add-on software application and build it into the OS. Since it comes with the OS, their competition dies, and they just raise the price of Windows a Little.
Life is too short to proofread.
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!
Go ahead and force MS to sell those in the EU a copy w/o WMP. Now EU users will be forced to pay $30 to $40 to Real, Music Match, Quicktime, etc. to get the same functionality they get for free with WMP.
RealOne player: Here, free.
MusicMatch : Here, free.
QuickTime: Here, free.
You were saying?
(Oh, don't forget Winamp! Probrably the best of the bunch, IMHO.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
SCO's FUD campaign didn't survive five minutes in the German legal system, Microsoft is not going to get government permission to do anything the want to like in the U.S., and I don't think O.J. would be playing golf right now if the trial had been anywhere in Europe. America's legal system in increasingly becomming a liability to the U.S: With a bit of luck, Europe will be free of the lead weight of the Microsoft monoploy in a few years, while Americans will still be paying their Redmond tax.
The reason microsoft should be forced to do this is that it is illegal for a monopoly to abuse its power. This is NOT the nasty-old EU having a go at poor-old MS.
It is not acceptable for someone who buys a desktop from MS to use Word, to be forced to use a MS server - these are completely different beasts, and there is not good reason why they should have to come from the same company
Now of course MS would very much like you to buy everything from them, but the wider needs of society outweigh the desires of one company, (which, almost by definition, is doing okay if it's a monopoly).
MS has all the benefits of being a de facto monopoly, whose file formats etc are industry standard. The downside is it cannot act like a normal company - for the good of all of us it must be made to keep its interfaces open, so that (coming back to my example) another company can make a server that works as well as a MS powered one. Then the consumer can make a choice based on performance, rather than being forced to opt for an inferior product, simply because it's the only game in town. And it is this competition which drives innovation and progress.
And why is no one in Europe worried about Apple? OS X includes EVEN MORE apps than does Windows--the only difference is not as many people use OS X.
Even if this were true Apple is not a monopoly, and so different laws apply.
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.
1) If the company is obviously abusing it's near or total monopoly, definitely
2) They're not talking about shitting down MS, they're talking about stiff fines and (hopefully useful) regulations for MS to follow.
3) It's not simply "the government" since any result will be no doubt be put before the courts.
How is MS one of the best (US) companies? It's certainly not at the forefornt of innovations or reliability. If you want to help your economy the last thing you want is a lot of MS like companies:
1) MS is ridiculously profitable precisely *because* it abuses it's monopoly (in any free market those profit margins would have been squeezed by a nice little price war agree ago).
2) MS doesn't use all that capital very productively. Apart from employing relatively few people for a company of their revenue size, they tend to use their massive cash reserves to enter new sectors where they stifle innovation by (trying to) destroying the competition with mediocre products at low prices.
The question whether or not MS has competition is not the issue. The issue is whether MS abuses it's (near) monopoly position to keep competition down (both in the OS and in other markets)
Actually, if your code is properly modularized there's not problem removing a browser a media player a GUI or any other component. The problem is that M$ has spagetti codeded their dinky browser so their computers won't even boot without one. I'd say that limits the usefulness of the OS. People who would like to use it as a server platform with they could turn off most of these "features" aka services in the free world.
I can use mozilla as my (default) browser if I want to, or play mpgs per default with quicktime.
That's very hard to do and Microsoft takes every chance to undo your preference. I know, I tried with Windows 2000. I wanted to look at a CD with Portable Net Graphics and AVI movies on it. IE flunked both, Mozilla worked flawlessly. IE did not make Quicktime it's prefered viewer and WMP would not display PNG of AVI. That's pathetic because AVI is M$ format closely related to WMP formats and PNG is an openly published format. Mozilla was not the default browser and keeping it up to date is like hell on an M$ box. Just getting Mozilla requires a broadband connection, and knowledge you are unlikely to have in the Windoze world.
If red hat had a monopoly-like market share, then shipping a free media player (the KmovieKplayer 9) would be monopoly abuse because it would limit sales of 3rd party media players?
No, Red Hat does not have a dominant market position and Red Hat can not prevent others from using Kmovieplayer or any other free software anyway they would like. Microsoft has both of these.
if microsoft would have media player on a separate download/cd people would buy Real's player?
Real used to have a dominant makret position.
Did that sound pro m$?
No, just ignorant. A typical Astroturf troll at worst.
I better put the flameproof suit on.
Don't bother.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Microsoft has as much of a monopoly as consumers give them through direct software purchases, or indirect purchases through PC vendors they support. The solution is not litigation to protect ignorant consumers from themselves. The solution is education to inform consumers of other, possibly more suitable software solutions. As it stands, consumers are choosing Microsoft, and governments should not interfere with that choice.
If Microsoft's software is as inferior as we, the open source software community, say it is, then it should not be difficult to compete against that software based on quality, features, and usability. If open source software is not up to snuff, then people will either directly or indirectly choose Windows and we need to work on the quality of our products. If open source software is good enough, though, then we don't need to waste our time supporting litigation that will at most be a minor setback for Microsoft. We need to, instead, work on marketing strategies.
In any case, supporting litigation against Microsoft is a waste of valuable resources that could be better spent improving open source software and educating users so they can make informed choices about the software they purchase and use.
It's not just a problem of what's installed. It's also a problem of what can't be removed. IE can not be uninstalled from Windows. (Before anyone points to ways to uninstall or hide the desktop icon try removing the core DLLs. It'll either block it because they're in memory or crash your OS.) At least up to Win2K the media player can not be completely uninstalled either.
A linux distro may come with only one browser or media player, but no one commercial distro has been labeled a desktop monopoly. Being a monopoly changes the rules.
Developers: We can use your help.
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.
1. Windows is not a monopoly. The existance of Linux refutes this claim. If you try to to refute this, good luck. The law is so vague (in the US anyway) that the definition is left to the whim of a judge.
2. Do you really want the govt. to dictate what defines a software product? What happens if Linux becomes the dominant OS? Do you really want to deal with lawsuits by the govt telling Red Hat they can't bundle xanim or mozilla because it's anticompetitve. The SCO case is bad enough. You're just setting yourselves up to get screwed in the future if you give the govt this power.
Vote for Pedro
Hello folks,
there are two different issues here, which got intermingled with the usual religious war.
Issue # 1: Can the European Commission act as it is doing?
Reply: yes, simply because the EC Treaty explicitely empowers it to do so, and naturally, also provides remedies to challenge any Commission decision (taking the case to the European Court of Justice). It can levy a substantial fine too. End of story-no further soul searching required on this branch.
Issue # 2: Is it (ethically, financially, politically, technically, whatever) right to do so?
Reply: Here waters are murkier. Some militants in the USA will claim that M$ is a good company that generates profits, other European militants will claim M$ is pure, concentrated evil (remember the Fifth Element?). As in most cases in life, probably reality is gray, neither black nor white.
What matters to me is that M$ is unquestionably an innovation obstacle, as it attempts continuously to impose proprietary standards by using its de facto OS monopoly.
Any economist will confirm that far from helping innovation, a totally deregulated 'free market' leads to monopoly. In the USA the rule of law depends on the administration, and thus what the Clinton administration had begun to do was undone by the GW administration.
M$ embodies this simple observation and therefore its monopoly should be hampered. It can be done (remember IBM in the '70s? - I know, I was already around).
Thufir Hawat
Part-time Mentat