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.
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.
Will their inspectors actually be able to find WMP?
HH
--
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.