Microsoft Defies EU Commission

otahkgeek writes "Wired News is reporting that Microsoft claims that by removing Windows Media Player from Windows, it would be forced to ship a substandard version to European consumers. This is on the heels of a three-day hearing by a European commission to determine the validity of charges that Microsoft illegally abused its power over the home computer market."

Comments

O_o;;

[FortissimoWily]

Shipping a substandard OS to European customers?
How is this news? They've been doing that for years. ;)

Re:O_o;;

[Hes Nikke]

shouldn't that be "Shipping a substandard OS to non-European customers?"

yeah i know, it was too easy ;)

Re:O_o;;

[BrokenHalo]

And to whom have they been shipping the standard version?

Hmmmm

[the_other_one]

Will the substandard DRM free, anti American version be available in North America for purchase or will I have to pirate a copy.

Re:Hmmmm

[Fux the Penguin]

It may well be. It seems the DOJ may not be too happy with MS's media packaging, either. You woud have thought they would have learned by now.

Oh, wait, no, they wouldn't, since the last time the DOJ tried to smack MS upside their heads, MS bought off the government and went right on their merry way. My bad.

Re:Hmmmm

[the_other_one]

Maybe at least they will get another pat on the wrist.

Discount

[wombatmobile]

I don't need a media player with the operating system, just an operating system. That's cheaper, right?

Re:Discount

[Anonymous Coward]

In my understanding of the Windows architecture, the "OS" resides on the boot sector. The rest of the install is a windowing system, a web browser, a media player, and a lot of glue to make everything hold together.

Re:Discount

[Brandybuck]

Not at all! That would imply that the OS is just the kernel. But as we all know, because RMS told us, the OS includes compilers, editors, sorting and searching utilities, and of course, a chess program.

Re:Discount

[BrokenHalo]

I certainly wish that they would be forced to sell just an operating system.

I would be happy if they sold an operating system, rather than the cobbled-together collection of hacks buried under a pile of mind-numbing UI candyfloss that comprises XP. Seems that every time I try to get anything done on those machines, the object of the OS is to prevent the user from operating the system.

Re:Discount

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

If your os comes without a browser how are you suppossed to download it?

Re:Discount

[Hooded One]

IE requires Windows. Sure, you're downloading it for "free" but you already paid for part of its development when you bought your copy.

It's kind of pointless trying to persuade them

[mao che minh]

Microsoft has always taken the most contrary stance possible to it's critics, be they consumer or judicial - or even government. Acts of persuausion or coercion by the E.U. are pointless. Microsoft will never change their ways unless they punished, period.

At some point someone is going to have to stand up to them. Being able to dodge bullets wouldn't hurt, but hopefully, whoever finally does won't have to.

Re:It's kind of pointless trying to persuade them

[mozumder]

Meanwhile, I take the view that we should let Microsoft do whatever they want. Let them force hardware makers to bundle WMP9 or IE. That'll only force people to build upon non-MS operating systems, such as Linux or MacOS.

The competition exists, and microsoft's 90% share in the marketplace isn't insurmountable, as the leading-edge users are still going to innovate on Linux or Mac.

The only question is how many people are developing for linux or macs vs. windows....

Re:It's kind of pointless trying to persuade them

[Michael Crutcher]

Isn't that been the stance they've always taken? Obviously the masses have fled Windows because of its inclusion of the sub-standard IE.

Ohh wait, you mean they haven't?

Re:It's kind of pointless trying to persuade them

[Anthony Boyd]

Meanwhile, I take the view that we should let Microsoft do whatever they want. Let them force hardware makers to bundle WMP9 or IE. That'll only force people to build upon non-MS operating systems, such as Linux or MacOS.

No. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. A US court actually found them guilty, although the punishment was a slap on the wrist. This means that Microsoft has been found to use illegal activities to lock-in customers, so that they cannot switch without substantial (possibly insurmountable) burden. You cannot let them do "whatever," because they will exploit illegal methods to prevent people from "building upon non-MS operating systems."

Re:It's kind of pointless trying to persuade them

[Epistax]

What if as a state you decide to view Microsoft as a sovereign nation, then as a state, enact full trade sanctions?
It doesn't make any sense, then again nothing in politics has for quite some time.

Err...

[rune.w]

Microsoft claims that by removing Windows Media Player from Windows, it would be forced to ship a substandard version to European consumers.

Is it me or I'm the only one who thinks this is an oxymoron?

R.

Re:Err...

[SiliBelgian]

Actually, it's a pleonasm.

An oxymoron would be something like:
A version of Windows shipped with Windows Media Player is a superior operating system.

Re:Err...

[Captain_Chaos]

You mean either:

Is it just me or does anyone else think this is an oxymoron?

Or:

Am I the only one who thinks this is an oxymoron?

Sorry about that, I just think it's ironic when people make language mistakes when commenting on someone else's language...

Let the battle begin!

[Fux the Penguin]

I know a lot of /.'s American readers might not care so much, but as a belgian, I'm glad this has finally started. I read a story about this a few days ago, and it was still undecided how MS would proceed. I wonder how the EU will see this in light of the recent warning from america's government about the Shop for Music mess. Feature my arse. Anyway, we europeans have got to do our part to fight software patents and monopolies, and I'm glad to see the EU might be up to the task.

Re:Let the battle begin!

[SiliBelgian]

Before you move to Europe, do some looking around first. They're just as capitalistic as the US.

Well, I'm from Belgium (obviously), and I have the impression our government watches big corporations VERY closely as such matters are concerned. Sure, we are capitalistic too, because we support the free market and open up government businesses for denationalisation.
But our government is not turning fascist on us, it doesn't restrict civil liberties because the Corporation asks them. They have no reason to, because political parties can't accept money from companies without creatin an extensively-covered scandal.

Re:M$ vs WinAmp

[skajake]

Very true, but remember the important rule of thumb.. If it is default, 99% of users will not go the extra mile of finding a better alternative.

If it works... dont fix it! This is why MS needs to be put in check.

Ban 'em!

[MBCook]

I, for one, am sick of all of this. I must say that I would LOVE to see the EU place an import ban on Microsoft Software (at least Windows), even if for only for a week, or even a day. See what a few billion in lost revenues does to 'em.

Or put some kind of huge levy on them, like $20 per copy of Windows brought into the country untill the WMP is removed, and ban Microsoft from raising the price (both to consumers and to OEMs) so that they can't pass on the cost. Again, when they start to lose a lot of money, maybe they're realize that something bad WILL happen to them, it's not just a bluff.

Either way, I'd like to see the EU (or ANYONE) just stick it to MS for once to show them they can't keep pushing everyone around. And, if the EU forces someone to offer a "inferior version", shouldn't they be forced to sell that inferior version or NOTHING? Microsoft has called your bluff, so step up to the plate!

At this point, I think that a breakup (into OS, Office, Games, Hardware, and Other) would have made things so much better for us all.

Re:Ban 'em!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, EU thinks Windows has abused the market by including WMV? According to most of the posts here, WMV is never used because there are such superior 3rd party apps available. What am I missing? Sounds more like a money grab from a successful US company (Who hasn't gained anything from steel tariffs). If you don't like MS buy a MAC or use Linux.

(From an Anomymous Coward in the USA who is tired of every site wanting one to create an account. I get enough SPAM without submitting to the Wired crowd.)

Re:Ban 'em!

[Bastian]

With a near 100% profit margin on Windows, enough money in their coffers to end world hunger if they ever felt like it, and the various versions of Windows having several hundred dollar price tags, I don't think Microsoft has much to fear from a $20 per copy fee.

And firmer means are kind of scary to implement. Even the EU is so Windows-dependent that a ban on imports until Media Player is removed could cause some serious problems if Microsoft decides to wait it out instead of complying right away.

Re:Ban 'em!

[Hi_2k]

You just proved apple and RM's point. The monopoly is not on the playing of a format, its on the playing of video files in genral. Microsoft has video software. Microsoft uses huge power to make sure that all content is released in its format. Microsoft pushes its media player and its format onto consumers because they want video and microsoft's format has a monopoly on the video market. So microsoft doesnt include RM and MOV support to further levrage its monopoly. Its simple, really.

Re:Ban 'em!

[gehrehmee]

Way easier than that:

A) MS abused their copyrights
B) MS isn't willing to change
C) MS's refusal to play fair has a direct impact on the EU economies, so:

D) Just have the EU declare all infringing MS products public domain. See how long it takes before EuroWindows is available at the low-low cost of $0 to anyone who wants it. There's an onion in the ointment that MS'll want to avoid.

And don't tell me that that reaction would be unjustified or out of proportion: When corporations start declaring open war on governments, all's fair.

Re:Ban 'em!

[Zeinfeld]

A few years ago they were Realplayer or Quicktime. Some Sites still run 2 or 3 Different players but more and more are just playing WMP. Is it because WMP is cheaper? Is it because WMP is better? or Is it because WMP comes on 90% of PC sold in the last 3 to 4 Years?

Maybe its because Realplayer fucks up your PC completely with its numerous nagware components. There is a stupid icon in your system tray that keeps blinking away forever, the user interface is clumsy and ad laden.

Quicktime is nowhere near as offensive but it is an irritation to have to keep clicking away the offer to spend $30 on a stupid CODEC.

It would be a different issue if the competitors were genuinely open and unencumbered standards. They are not, the cost of server licenses for streaming video is ridiculous. There is no reason they should cost one penny more than Apache.

Microsoft just have a more clueful business model, if you look into the pricing of the systems you will quickly see the smart move to make.

Ogg would be better, if it was really all there.

It's ok, it's a "function" of Windows

[obsid1an]

"The Commission calls it a product, but Microsoft considers it one function of Windows..."

So what exactly isn't an OS supposed to do? This argument could be made for ANYTHING MS wanted to put into Windows.

Internet browsing, function.

Media player, function.

Word & speadsheet processing, function.

Image editing, function.

Developer IDE, function.

Cost of OS, $400.

Re:It's ok, it's a "function" of Windows

[Naffer]

I'd hate to offend the average self-rightous-MS-hating slashdotter, but seriously... I don't want an empty shell of an OS. I don't use linux because it isn't convenient for me. Want to watch a movie? I can go grab it, and maybe a codec or two, and I'm set. While winamp is a decent MP3 player, I have yet to find a video player that works as well as WMP. I don't like Quicktime, and I'll never use "The Divx Playa" as long as I live. If you have Windows XP installed and you don't want to use WMP, then dont.

Microsoft suxxors... groupthink roxxors.
Whatever...

Re:It's ok, it's a "function" of Windows

[AvantLegion]

Most of these are included in my trusty new copy of Mac OS X 10.3.

Stupid anti-trust lawsuits

[Stile 65]

I know this goes against the grain of what most Slashdotters believe, but Microsoft is not a monopoly. A monopoly is a company that gets exclusive market rights from the government. The US Postal Service is a monopoly, because (IIRC) the US government forbids anyone from charging lower postage for first class mail within the US, for example.

If you don't like IE, use Netscape or Opera or lynx or whatever. If you don't like Windows, use Linux or BSD or HURD or BeOS or MacOS or...

If you don't like Windows Media Player, use Winamp or RealPlayer or Quicktime or whatever you want.

Customers who aren't satisfied with Microsoft don't sue them. They simply switch to a better solution. Microsoft simply does not have the legal ability to force alternatives out of existence. They are not a legal monopoly.

I wish the governments of the world would get that already, and stop wasting our tax money on lawyers. And stop wasting our tax money on Microsoft licenses too, whose prices are inflated by Microsoft's legal fees.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, switch to open-source software and stop being so sue-happy. Stupid governments.

Re:Stupid anti-trust lawsuits

[obsid1an]

RTFA.

This isn't about Microsoft's monopoly. It's about how MS uses its large market share in the OS market to push its own software in other markets (ie - the media player market).

Re:Stupid anti-trust lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot. Get a new dictionary; the one you have is crap.

Many companies that had no exclusive market rights from the government have been broken up because they were monopolies. Legal monopolies are government sanctioned and illegal monopolies are not. Can you guess which Microsoft is? (hint: you answered it in your post).

Re:Stupid anti-trust lawsuits

[IamNotWitchboy]

This is not the issue at all. The real issue is not whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly, but the fact that they are unfairly using the monopoly that they gained in the desktop OS market to push other products into consumers. The first example was Netscape. Right now it's Windows Media Player. Next, who knows? probably Microsoft Reader Document, or the Flash competition they are supposedly developing. The truth is that Microsoft is gaining market share in certain areas with inferior products simply because they are bundling those products with the OS.

Re:Stupid anti-trust lawsuits

[proxima]

First of all, a monopoly is "the only supplier of a product for which there is no close substitute." (according to my Modern Industrial Organization textbook, by Carlton and Perloff.) This definition, and most others, have nothing to do with "market rights from the government". Those are simply government-established monopolies.

Now, from a practical standpoint, a company is a monopoly if it exerts too much influence in one market (basically a company that is close to a textbook monopoly). They have the ability to manipulate price to increase profits for themselves and by doing so create a deadweight loss to market (consumers lose a lot, monopoly gains some, some "welfare" just goes away).

Monopolies can be "natural" in some markets, usually those where fixed costs are high (think electrical companies with massive grids and expensive power plants). Many monopolies are left alone as long as they don't (overly) abuse their market power, usually by using that market influence to gain influence in a new market. This brings about anti-trust actions. With Microsoft, they leveraged their operating system "monopoly" to make their Internet Explorer the dominant browser in the market (by giving it away and tying it to the OS). They have been found guilty of this, but it's easy to see them using their market power in other areas as well.

Even if you were to define a "monopoly" as a company given that power by the government, one can make an argument for that with Microsoft as well. Copyrights and patents are what allows Microsoft to produce products that others could not simply resell at a lower price, decompile/disassemble and release the modified code, etc. (legally). However, most people see a need for copyrights and patents to encourage people to produce "intellectual property" and be able to make some money off of it.

In general, the function of government is to try to improve the welfare of its citizens, and reducing a monopoly's power has that effect.

Re:Stupid anti-trust lawsuits

[slashdot_commentator]

A monopoly is a company that gets exclusive market rights from the government.

No, that is a definition of a utility, such as a power company, or cable service. The price that the entity pays for having exclusive rights is that it is HEAVILY regulated by the local, state, and federal government. Are you suggesting that Microsoft is a not a monopoly, but a utility that should be subject to heavy government regulation?

The US Postal Service is a monopoly

Technically, no. The US Postal Service was considered an organ of government. Do you call the Federal Judicial system a monopoly? The federal government has offloaded that function to a non-governmental entity, in order to improve its efficiency.

Standard Oil was a company that did not get exclusive market rights from the federal government, but was able to use its market position to extort profits from its consumers. It was also able to crush competitors by either lowering its prices to prevent either of them from making a profit, or prevent them from gaining access to materials to produce their product. This is the generally accepted definition of a monopoly. It does not require a coercion from the government.

While I do respect your libertarian point of view, I question whether you genuinely understand what constitutes a monopoly.

Re:Stupid anti-trust lawsuits

[shaitand]

Microsoft did NOT develop the concept of an operating system if that whats you mean. They didn't develope the concept of personal computers. They didn't develope the concept of operating systems for personal computers. They didn't develop the concept of a windowing system and graphical interface. They didn't develop the concept of a web browser. They didn't write the code that formed MS-DOS, they didn't write the code that formed NT, they didn't develope the concept of a media player. They didn't develope the concept of a terminal server, mail server, games, dialer, card games, command line, batch files, file system permissions, compression, acl's, networkable drives, web server, ftp server, text editor the list goes on and on.

The list of things that weren't microsoft's idea goes forward to encompase every concept and application you will find produced by Microsoft (not just all the ones in the operating system).

They invented... NONE of it. They innovated... NONE of it. They developed... NONE of it.

They may have written some fringe code themselves (not sure it can be proven microsoft itself has even written a line to be honest), but they certainly didn't write any of the core functionality.

Who knows it might be a mistake to say microsoft writes bad code, if they ever actually wrote some it might be pretty good stuff. But it's all theory until they do, for now I expect they'll continue to get it all via subcontracting and stealing the produce from business deals in which they screw the other party (*cough* NT *cough*).

Re:Stupid anti-trust lawsuits

[mOdQuArK!]

A monopoly is a company that gets exclusive market rights from the government.

Ah...no. Sorry, you are incorrect. In the one direction, a company that gets exclusive market rights from the government is a monopoly - yes, that is true. In the other direction, a company needs only to have enough control over the market to be able to discourage any significant competition from forming. It is quite possible for a company to become a monopoly without any special rights granted by the government. Most of the laws regulating the behavior of legally-recognized monopolies were written because of the abuse of such control of various markets by those companies which had successfully achieved monopoly status (Standard Oil, various railroad companies, etc), without being granted any special status by the government.

Microsoft simply does not have the legal ability to force alternatives out of existence. They are not a legal monopoly.

You are incorrect in both statements. Yes they do, and they have been legally-recognized as a monopoly. They have also been found to perform acts which are illegal for a company that has established a monopoly. There were no confusion about these legal statements - only about the proposed action to remedy the situation.

As far as their ability to force alternatives out of existence, it would be quite simple for them to tell any company which was trying to use an alternative that they'd better stop or Microsoft will not license any of Microsoft's software to them (which would kill most companies), and if they still don't agree, then Microsoft could go to the vendors & customers of the offending company and threaten THEM of they don't stop doing business with the offending company. The _only_ reason that Microsoft can't do this is because of the laws against a legally-recognized monopoly doing this kind of thing.

Re:Stupid anti-trust lawsuits

[Tony-A]

They are not a legal monopoly.

Correct. They are an illegal monopoly.
The nature of legal monopolies is that they are extremely regulated by government bodies. This is required because there are not the market forces in play to ensure fair play by the monopolies.

What courts should force MS to do.

[Bruha]

Windows just like DOS is a Operating System OS. That's all it should do. Provide a platform to run ANY program you wish to run on it.

Required programs should consist of basic grapics and network drivers that are compatible with almost everything. Some generic browser that's not intergrated into the entire system to allow one to select their own browser.

Then it can also provide links to obtain optimized drivers from each vendor that your PC runs from. Or download them itself and install as necessary.

Either way. Internet Explorer and WMP through licensing and other agreements have become vital and critical portions of other systems. There are whole groups of banks who will not allow you to conduct transactions from any other browser other than IE and there are tons of media houses that will not let you access it without IE AND WMP.

Of course some would argue that some sites are RA and Quicktime only. So I'd say force them to allow others to view their encoded content also and let them focus on the encoding part not the consumer part.

These are the same tactics being employed by many companies such as a printer shop that has elevated USB cables becuase the printer company does not include a USB cable most times. Or Local Number Portability. Think you're using that GSM phone on a CDMA network?

When was the last time you used a standard set of tools on your car or truck without having to have some special star socket to finish the job.

You can all whine and point the finger at MS but these issues surround your daily life. How bad does it have to get before you stand up and tell your politicans were tired of it. I sure hope it's not to the point where you cant use X toilet paper with Y toilet without it refusing to flush.

Re:As if this was a bad thing...

[Babbster]

First of all, MS can't be saying that it's WMP that's making Windows superior? You've got to be kidding me. Most people don't even use that app for their multimedia needs.

I suspect you're referring to the same "most people" who don't use Internet Explorer (a truly inferior product) for their web-browsing needs - in other words, "a minority of people." I use Windows XP (surprisingly, the best Microsoft OS I've used) and I find that that Windows Media Player, with the appropriate codecs installed, works quite well for a wide variety of multimedia files. The idea that "most people" using Windows are using an outside multimedia viewer/player when the software that comes with the system works fine is laughable.

You gotta include something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, I don't care what media player is included with the OS, so long as one is included at all. If the EU forces Microsoft to un-bundle WMP, I hope it'll force it to include some other media player. Releasing an OS today without media playback capabilities is ridiculous.

I know it's easy enough to go download your latest copy of winamp or whatever, but frankly - there are a lot of people out there, that wouldn't know the first place to look, and will be left wondering why nothing happens when they double click on their *.mp3 file.

Not important

[Lord_Dweomer]

This isn't really all that important. I'll only be able to rejoice once the EU forces them to remove Clippy.

Re:Maybe they're emulating the President

[LostCluster]

MS is basically daring the EU to try to punish it, because they can't without hurting themselves. If MS were to pull out of Europe, the damage would be huge.

Sure, all of Europe could convert to Linux... but they'd be forced to. As a result, a lot of hardware would have to be replaced and a lot of software would have to be replaced. Banning Windows would be quite the expensive proposition, and MS could damage the whole EU economy by threatening to walk... Bully Bill will get his way.

The old saying

[be-fan]

Like they say: A computer without Windows Media Player is like a dog without a brick tied to its head.

The EU probably won't do anything to Microsoft...

[kcbrown]

I don't think the EU is much less in the pockets of corporations than the U.S. government, considering how quickly they've done things like passing an even worse version of the DMCA than the DMCA itself is.

That being the case, how many here think the EU will actually bother to stand up to Microsoft in the end? My bet is that the EU will continue to make noise about Microsoft until Microsoft pays them off (quietly, behind the scenes, of course), at which point the EU will quietly decide not to "go forward" with any sort of real action against Microsoft. At most, the EU will probably give Microsoft a good wrist-slapping ("Stop, or I shall say 'stop' again!").

Only if a more powerful multinational corporation attempts to influence the EU against Microsoft will the EU really do anything.

Re:Maybe they're emulating the President

[intermodal]

you speak as if the WTO matters. They don't...a governing body is only as powerful as its enforcers

what about xmms in linux distros?

[Anonymous Coward]

So linux distros aren't going to be allowed to ship xmms, or do we need to wait until Linux is a monopoly.

Re:what about xmms in linux distros?

[bitmason]

Why is this comment modded as funny? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander and all that. If functionality needs to be/should be/etc. unbundled from Windows, why should any other OS be any different? Because Windows is a monopoly today? Perhaps. But that implies an argument that once you get above a certain percentage of marketshare, you need to start unbundling functionality.

Seems pretty whacked to me.

Re:what about xmms in linux distros?

[jpmkm]

XMMS isn't installed by default, nor is it the only media player shipped with most distributions. When you install linux, you can choose exactly which packages you want to install. Imagine if windows came with wmp and winamp, and during installation you got to choose which one you wanted to install.

It's not about the applications

[Malc]

I couldn't give two hoots about Real to be honest. Their product has always been substandard and intensely irritating. What I am concerned about is that by muscling the competition out that MSFT get to set the standards for file formats, network protocols etc. This is far more lucrative to them, and has far more potential to limit our choices as users. It certainly won't be favourable to our pocket books.

Is it really that important?

[Txiasaeia]

This is NOT a big deal. So Windows comes with a media player -- so what? It's even half-decent -- if people don't want it, they can download other players. Even if they don't, it's not like there are tons of media players out there that cost money -- the big ones, Winamp and even QT are free to use for personal use.

Besides, the closest competition that the article mentions, RealPlayer, has constantly been flamed as bloated spyware. What's the difference between WMP and RP? Choice? I can choose to load up IE (or Opera, or Firebird, or Lynx W32) and download a different media player.

If the EU forces MS to take out WMP, then they should also remove Notepad, Calculator, MS Paint, Address Book, Hyperterminal... the list goes on.

What MS could do instead: ship with a non-WMP Windows version, then ask the user every day if they'd like to update their computer to include WMP.

[__] No thanks, go away

[__] Yes please!

Re:Is it really that important?

[dameron]

If it's installed by default it's what most people will use. If a media player plays an MP3 file, a video, does streaming content that's pretty much all most people want from a media player. MS has been shown to have a monopoly in the desktop OS market. They abused that monopoly to squish alternative browsers and they're trying to do the same thing to media players.

If the EU forces MS to take out WMP, then they should also remove Notepad, Calculator, MS Paint, Address Book, Hyperterminal... the list goes on.

Well, that'd be a good start and hints at how long this has been going on and the depth of the problem. Suppose you work for a software company that provides an interesting utility, like a zip program or a telnet client. Should MS decide to add such a program to the OS, like they did with a zip utility in recent incarnations, your business could dry up and die because you never got a chance to compete. Suddenly 90% of computers sold can already do what your program does.

What if you'd purchased a car from MS and it came with a free television. Normally that's not too bad a deal, and sometimes you see things like this in real life so you might thing there's nothing wrong with that. Now suppose that there was only one source of cars and pretty much everybody who purchased a car had to buy it from Microsoft and got that free tv. Now imagine that you make competing televisions.

Now imagine you purchase the car, got the free tv, and now suddenly your VCR doesn't work, you need a Microsoft VCR.

That's why it's important. I don't want to have to buy MS brand toilet paper one day to make my ass compatible.

-dameron

Price?

[slapout]

Since it will have a "feature" missing, does this mean it will cost less?

Re:Maybe they're emulating the President

[JahToasted]

Don'tcount it out... Europe hasn't forgotten the bad experiences they've had in appeasing bullies. Besides that, they woudln't have to switch everything to linux overnight. Microsoft can't delete the windows installed already.

Re:Maybe they're emulating the President

[bigsteve@dstc]

If were MS were to refuse to provide any more Windows licenses to Europe, it would hurt european business in the short term. But most companies could limit the damage by continuing to use their existing hardware with esisting Windows licenses. If the situation presisted, companies would increaingly transition their IT to non-Windows platforms. Assuming they move to open-source, this should give them better TCO for their IT, and make them more competitive in the long term than MS's remaining customers.

I don't think MS management would be so stupid as to take this course. It would massively damage MS's reputation, and could trigger a world-wide stampede of government and busuness away from reliance on MS products.

Re:Substandard, you mean without DRM ?

[nhaines]

I hate you tell you this, but MP3 is also a proprietary music format. The only popular open format I know of for audio is Ogg Vorbis.

Anyhow, when you go into the Tools|Options... menu on Windows Media Player 7 and higher, you set whether or not you want DRM in your ripped files or not, right alongside where you set the bitrate and other settings. It's hardly hidden. It's just activated by defaults. Some portable music players require it.

Re:Maybe they're emulating the President

[archen]

First of all, why would anyone need to replace any hardware?

Because they all have win-modems?

Re:As if this was a bad thing...

[znu]

Untying WMP from Windows wouldn't result in PCs shipping with no media player installed -- it would just put the choice in the hands of OEMs, rather than Microsoft.

Re:Maybe they're emulating the President

[El Cubano]

MS is basically daring the EU to try to punish it, because they can't without hurting themselves. If MS were to pull out of Europe, the damage would be huge.

For argument's sake, let's say that all European governments/consumers spend US$ 0.5 billion on MS software. Now if sale of MS software is banned, and *all* of that money went into developing or improving replacement software (which could be done by local Europeans if it was all OSS), then how the hell is this bad? Half a billion that was going into MS's coffers is now being poured right back into the local European economies. In fact, it seems that banning MS would be the best thing they can possibly do for their economies, even if only a fraction of that money were reinvested in local software development.

Empty threat

[BroncoInCalifornia]

If MS were to pull out of Europe, the damage would be huge.

There is no way MS will pull out of Europe. If they did, non Windows and non MS-Office would reach critical mass in a large part of the world. That would be a disaster.

If that happened we would have side by side competition of Office Suits and OSes where we would compare products and prices and choose. There is no way Microsoft would let that happen if they could stop it.

Re:Maybe they're emulating the President

[flacco]

MS could damage the whole EU economy by threatening to walk

if this isn't a prime example of the dangers of a computing monoculture, i don't know what is.

say it with me:

standard protocols.
standard file formats.
open source software.

repeat forever.

Microsoft does have a point...

[olePigeon (Wik)]

Those "features" should, however, be optional.

Completely removing Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer is going a little too far. They should just implement some of the earlier suggestions in the U.S. trials by making each of those "features" an optional install at the BEGINNING of the install process. Have a Customize button just like in Mac OS that lets you choose which features you want to have installed on the OS.

I think the difference between an Application and an OS feature for Microsoft is whether or not those "features" are available for other operating systems. For example, Windows Media Player should not be a feature because it's a full fledged application for Mac OS. Likewise with Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer (though Microsoft could get away with Explorer still since they no longer offer it for Mac OS.)

I find it irksome that when it comes to security Microsoft likes to point out the distinctions between "features" and OS when considering a security hole. If there's a security problem with Internet Explorer, they don't call it Windows, they make sure everyone knows it's just Internet Explorer and not the "OS". Likewise if there's a problem with Windows, it has nothing to do with Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, etc.

So if Microsoft likes to refer to these "features" as separate entities in relation to security, then they should be treated as such and made removable during installation.

Re:As if this was a bad thing...

[herrvinny]

Nonsense, I use WMP for my music all the time. The trick is to disable the DRM feature. On my Win XP computer, open up Media Player, go to Tools, Options. On the Options window, go to the Copy Music tab, and make sure the "Protect content" box is unchecked.

Windows Media Player is stable, and it organizes my music nicely (Granted, I don't have a huge collection of music, so YMMV). I've had IE crash on me more times than WMP has (IE has crashed more in these last few days than since I got it; it's probably because the laptop isn't Suspending properly. Anyway, WMP has crashed maybe once or twice. Not too shabby), and WMP is constantly running in the background. Dell shipped MusicMatch Jukebox preloaded onto my laptop, but I haven't used it, nor do I intend to. Dell's branded version of Musicmatch is, in my opinion, buggy and bloated.

Not to mention, I downloaded MusicMatch onto my 5 yr old Compaq Armada, running Win 98, and it's as slow as molasses when loading and running MusicMatch. Interestingly enough, when I uninstalled MusicMatch and installed the latest version of WMP (keep in mind this is a 5yr old Win 98 Compaq Armada) it worked fine. So I left WMP on it.

Say what you like about MS software, but WMP is off limits. It's a good program. Besides, what is Joe Sixpack going to do without WMP? Search around for other solutions? No way. Joe probably doesn't know there are alternate programs for music playback.

Steel tariffs

[tehanu]

I wonder if the EU has thought of just including MS products in the 100% tariffs category (along with things like sunglasses and motorbikes) that they are allowed (by the WTO) to impose on imports from the US as a retalitory measure to the illegal US steel tariffs. Come to think of it, weren't countries like Japan, China, Korea, Australia as well as a host of others also part of the WTO judgement (on the side of the EU) as well?

So Dubya, keep those illegal steel tariffs! Remember you need to win votes in steel producing states in the next election!

Wrong focus, yet again!

[Adrian Lopez]

When will governments learn? Just as the US government crippled its antitrust case against microsoft by focusing on bundling rather than on Microsoft's contracts with OEMs, the European Union is making the same mistake. It's not the bundling that's the problem, it's Microsoft's stranglehold over the OEM market that's the problem. Address that instead of forcing them to remove a useful part of the Windows bundle.

That said, I do wish that governments would do something about preserving fair use in a world full of DRM software. While Windows Media Player may itself contribute to restrictions on fair use, it is by no means the only mechanism - nor even the primary mechanism - through which DRM content will be delivered. DRM is a great deal more dangerous than the bundling of media player software. The EU makes a big fuss about Windows Media Player, but what are they doing to mitigate the negative effects of DRM? Nothing at all.

The No Spin Zone

[rsmith-mac]

There are times when I wish we could mod stories down, so that stories like this could be killed. For anyone that reads the article, it talks about what MS told the EU about what they insist are the ramifications of removing WMP from Windows, but the title is "Microsoft Defies EU Commission". Please tell me where it states that MS isn't complying with the EU, or otherwise doing something that is defying the EU(other than the monopoly issue at hand). This is a disagreement with the EU, perhaps even a strong one, but for MS to defy the EU they must either act when they shouldn't, or not act when they should; you can't defy the EU when the action in question never left the proposal stage.

Re:fact is MS is right

[Waffle Iron]

That's right, it's the file formats that are the real problem. Microsoft maintains its monopoly largely because their competitors must spend so much effort trying to reverse engineer the ever-changing secret file formats and APIs that they don't have resources left over to innovate new improvements.

A simple tweak to copyright laws would largely fix this. Make secret file formats and copyright protection a mutually exclusive choice. Copyright was originally instituted to encourage open publication. Therefore, it should only be fair that software which enjoys copyright protection must be provided with the full open specifications of the file formats it uses. This ensures that there will always be a free market for that type of application, and users are better off because their their valuable data is not held hostage under the exclusive control of an external vendor.

Of course, if a file format is so stupendously elite that a software vendor can't stand to publish it, they could always choose to release their programs without copyright protection. The choice would be theirs.

Even if people don't have the guts to univerally institute a reform like this today (and they most certainly don't), this condition could have been applied very effectively to the special case of the original Microsoft antitrust trial. It would have been less absurd than breaking the company up, and it would help restore a free market in desktop software. We wouldn't have to worry about WMP and its proprietary formats taking over the digital television and movie publication markets just because Microsoft locks in deals with a critical mass of content producers and nobody else can figure out how it works. They could bundle WMP to their heart's content, but competitors wouldn't be locked out of using native WMA formats.

There are those that would argue that exposing secret file formats is unfair to the software vendor. However, there are times when the harm to the public of keeping product information secret outweighs the economic benefit gained by the industry selling the products. Not many people today would argue that we should abolish food ingredients lists on labels to help protect the proprietary interests of food manufacturers. Now, it's just a fact of doing business in the food industry. They compete in other areas than top secret ingredients lists, and we all benefit from being able to know what we're eating.

Re:Maybe they're emulating the President

[antiMStroll]

If MS were to pull out of Europe,..MS could damage the whole EU economy by threatening to walk...

I wouldn't be so sure without knowing what it means in concrete terms to pull out or walk away from Europe. Is it immediately closing down support offices and services? Good luck breaking all those corporate contracts. Unilaterally de-activate their software tomorrow? No too likely, MS's legal coffers are big but not that big. Refuse to ship to Europe? They have distribution agreements to uphold and I doubt starting a trade war would be to their benefit either. Europeans could simply stop enforcing anti-piracy laws where Microsoft was concerned while an alternative took shape.

Microsoft isn't omnipotent. There are limits in law and their business model to what they can do and how quickly. The only reasonable scenario I see is to stop developing new product with European needs in mind and allow existing contracts to laspe when they end, in other words a slow retreat. Nothing could be better for for alternate operating systems, and I'd expect to see a major alignment between the European economy and third world software powers too poor to buy Windows anyway. Software companies and investors worldwide would go nuts trying to fill the void left by a monopoly. A European dot.com 2.

MS pulling out of Europe would probably isolate the North American market, not the Europeans.

Re:As if this was a bad thing...

[FsG]

Maybe Joe should take the time to find out, if he doesn't appreciate getting spied upon. WMP keeps track of everything you play, and phones home frequently to let Microsoft know.

Go Microsoft

[Jubii]

I'm sure this will get modded down as a troll, but I feel I must clear my chest. I say bravo to Microsoft for giving them the finger. You buy the software "as is". Windows comes with Internet Explorer, Outbreak Express, and the Win Media Player - for everyone. That's the way it is. They are not in the business of customizing their operating system for certain audiences. It is my uderstanding that the EU sees WMP as a threat to other multimedia technologies, but I don't think they should force MS to remove their application as a solution. Truth of the matter is you don't see anyone jumping on Apple's case for having built-in web, email, and multimedia. If roles were reversed, and everybody used a Mac, would the EU be telling Apple that they should unbundle Quicktime with their os due to monopolistic practices?? I feel the Union is overstepping its boundries... I don't belive that Microsoft has a superior product with WMP, and I believe their response to the EU was a nice way of saying, "screw off, we're not going to reengineer our crap!" And honestly people, how many times have you wanted to say that yourself?

Re:Go Microsoft

[Kwil]

If roles were reversed, and everybody used a Mac, would the EU be telling Apple that they should unbundle Quicktime with their os due to monopolistic practices??

Yes.

Quicktime

[SignificantBit]

... you remember? that thing called Quicktime that come bundled with a OS called OS X?

Re:Quicktime

[Jesrad]

Last time I checked Apple did not have exclusive deals with OEMs so as to have QuickTime preinstalled on each and every PC sold.

Monopolies have additional limits to what they do, so that they don't abuse their position on the market. MS falls in this category, Apple does not.

Re:As if this was a bad thing...

[Shakrai]

Untying WMP from Windows wouldn't result in PCs shipping with no media player installed -- it would just put the choice in the hands of OEMs, rather than Microsoft.

Yes, because I trust the OEMs to act in my best interest and Microsoft not to maniplate the process.

Little OEM guy scenario:

OEM: We have decided to bundle Netscape, AOLIM, and Realplayer instead of IE, MSNIM, and Media Player.
Microsoft: Oh. Well, in that case, let's reevaluate our pricing structure here... [tapping on calcuator], yes I think we can accommodate you [slides calucator across the table].
OEM: But that will destroy our profits!
Microsoft: So raise your prices.
OEM: Then we can't compete with the other guys!
Microsoft: Your breaking my heart here...

Big OEM guy scenario:

Peon: Sir, why don't we bundle Netscape and AOLIM instead of Microsoft products this year? Ya know, give our consumers a taste of something else?
CEO: Umm... but I don't golf with the AOL people. I golf with Mr. Gates and he assures me that his products are the best.
Peon: Ok sir, could we perhaps bundle both and offer our customers the choice?
CEO: Yes, yes, that's all well and good, but I have my tee time to worry about... besides, we have this established relationship with Microsoft, why should we rock the boat?
Peon: *sighing* Alright sir, I'll go tell 'em to bundle the Microsoft stuff again.
CEO: Good job.... and son?
Peon: Yes sir?
CEO: Good work.

Call me cynical....

too little too late

[gmkeegan]

According to the story, the commission will reach a decision "by June of 2004", after which it may go to court. By then the pc-media-player wars will be over and MS will have destroyed another category of software.

To sleep, perchance to dream

As if!

[HangingChad]

What a stupid thing for M$ to say, even a step down from their usual silly comments. Stomping all over the American public so long must've gone to their heads at Castle Redmondore. Sort of reminds me of Bush.

Piss off the Europeans enough and they'd simply do what they did to the drug companies and threaten to bust their patents. Oh, you know there had to be a reason other countries sell the same drugs at a fraction of the price in other countries. We can't win an economic sanction war against the EU.

The Europeans will see this as an opportunity to hit back at M$ and snub the US in one motion. I wouldn't expect them to back down. In fact, M$'s comments were the worst possible thing they could've said. It backs up European fears about being subject to an American monopoly and gives them bad Bush flashbacks. This was sort of the coporate version of the "bring 'em on" comment.

Not only would I be surprised if they back down on sanctions, but I'd expect them to start funding development of a new EuroLinux alternative, ala Airbus.

I can sometimes see why they think we're a bunch of wankers over here when you look at things from their perspective.

Re:The EU probably won't do anything to Microsoft.

[Lost2Home]

That being the case, how many here think the EU will actually bother to stand up to Microsoft in the end?

Hard to say. One thing that must be remembered is that MS is a US monopoly that is also trying to leverage its monopoly to the detriment of several large European software companies.

MS certainly will not get the same level of sympathy from the EU commission that they have gotten from the US Justice system.

Re:Maybe they're emulating the President

[swillden]

Sure, all of Europe could convert to Linux... but they'd be forced to.

Nahh, the EU could just announce that they're not going to enforce Microsoft's copyrights for the duration of the ban. No forced conversions. The US would raise a fuss about treaty violations, but I think the EU could successfully argue overriding concerns. And although the US government may have given up trying to nail MS, I doubt a lot of politicians are going to be lining up to champion the convicted anti-competitive monopolist.

a lot of hardware would have to be replaced

Eh? Most of the large organizations switching to Linux cite *savings* on hardware as one of the Linux advantages. Linux runs better than XP on older hardware. Sure, there are a few winmodems and a few winprinters for which drivers don't exist, and they might have to be replaced, but that's about it. You rarely find those in businesses anyway. And maybe having a market the size of the EU decide to stop buying those devices might just convince the manufacturers to provide Linux drivers, too.

Microsoft can't bully the EU.

Alternate possibility:

[stfvon007]

Why not just ship windows with a selection of media players installed allong with windows media player?

Re:Maybe they're emulating the President

[Quino]

"Threaten" to walk away?

I don't think MS has this sort of leverage. I think Europe could ban MS -- this doesn't mean formatting every European's hardrive.

All it would mean is that the next upgrade cycle would necessarily be something else, that's all.

I can see how Microsoft loses, I don't see how Europe would lose.

Shamefully, you can get such things now.

[twitter]

Will the substandard DRM free, anti American version be available in North America for purchase or will I have to pirate a copy.

I'm not sure about anti-American, but Knoppix is not hard to find in the US, yet. You don't need to break any laws to download and run it either, yet.

Oh yeah, "Digital Rights Management" is un-American. It gimps my press and that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." When someone else has control of what files can and can't be coppied or created on my primary writng instrument, I have no free press, speech or ability to petition my government. If I'm unable to share files from my primary writing instrument, I'm effectively forbiden to publish. Nothing short of universal censorship will make DRM work and nothing could be less American than that.

Microsoft is not just an embarasement to the technical community, they are an embarasement to all of us.

Re:Shamefully, you can get such things now.

[TKinias]

scripsit AnyNoMouse:

Access to the work after it passes into the public domain.

Ah, there's the problem: Nothing will ever again enter the public domain in the United States. Nothing. Ever. Disney et al. will see to that.

Re:Who'll blink first?

[mikeee]

"Starting Tuesday, we will no longer recognize Microsoft copyrights in Europe."

Re:Maybe they're emulating the President

[edwdig]

say it with me:

standard protocols.
standard file formats.
open source software.

If you have standard protocols and standard file formats, it doesn't matter much if your software is open source or not. Standard protocols and file formats ensure you're not locked in to a vendor even if the source is closed.

Re:As if this was a bad thing...

[Babbster]

Here's another worse-case scenario if MS took a bunch of vital components out of the OS...

Peon: Sir, we need to figure out which browser, video player and instant messaging system to put into our computers.
CEO: Huh, what? I was sleeping.
Peon: And very well, too, sir.
CEO: So what did you want again?
Peon: We need to put a browser, video player and instant messaging system on our computers and I need to know which ones to use.
CEO: There's more than one? Damn. Well, how do we make money?
Peon: The Real people are offering us $2 million a year to put their software on our computers, but it drains system resources, it's hard to uninst...
CEO: Excellent! Use that!
Peon: But sir, there are a couple of better free programs we could put on the systems.
CEO: So what? Two million is two million, baby! Cha-ching!
Peon: Okay, what about the instant messaging and internet browser?
CEO: Just get the most money you can for each.
Peon: What about quality, sir?
CEO: Seriously, man. I'd really rather not fire you. Most of the time you're pretty good about knowing when I'm napping. Get the picture?
Peon: Absolutely, sir. Money for placement. Hope you enjoy the rest of your nap, sir.
CEO: I will now.

nimo codec pack correction

[zoloto]

it's nimo actually

click here to download it or for you people that dont' like hyperlinks:

http://www.divx-digest.com/software/nimo_pack.ht ml

Useless

[aObie]

How long are governments going to pursue this endless litigation of companies who have monopolistic practices? Have we not learned anything from the IBM anti-trust lawsuit which went on for 13 years and ended with a hung jury? If Microsoft is truly producing an inferior product then in time it will get replaced by something better. However, nobody in this forum can really claim that linux is ready to be used by the average home consumer. So in short the US government as well as the EU should stop wasting their money and let the natural forces of competition weather away Microsoft's market position.

PS. If dealing with Microsoft as a monopoly is absolutly necessary there are better ways than breaking it up.

Re:The EU probably won't do anything to Microsoft.

[santeri]

I don't think the EU is much less in the pockets of corporations than the U.S. government, considering how quickly they've done things like passing an even worse version of the DMCA than the DMCA itself is.

Here, my friend, you're wrong. As stated by EFFI (EFF's Finnish subdiary) and others, the European version of the DMCA (in its current state) is much less draconian than the "original" US version that inspired it thanks to a good number of restrictive amendments and conditions placed in the EU hearing(s).

A bit of political thinking...

[jdifool]

I've browsed the numerous posts on the subject, and I've seen many reactions that emphasize the fact that EU is repeating the US government mistakes, that lawsuits suck etc.

So far, readers should consider giving some original responses, just as they ask for original tackling of the MS issue.

I'd like you to think about another way of considering the problem. The main question is : why did the EU do that ? Why did they do it *that* way and not another ?

It is a bit of a political thinking. I've red that the EU would suffer massive damage if they filed a too blunt lawsuit against MS. I've red that the WMP thing was a pretext to send a signal to Microsoft. I've red that the Echelon program was used sometimes through MS products. All these statements were in my mind since some time, and I think that, with a bit of political understanding of the situation, one can draw some different conclusions than the average "it means nothing" ones.

First of all, do you really think that EU political leaders are that stupid ? We've all seen that there was a study advising to bypass Windows and change to Linux. And one of the greatest advantage (among too much drawbacks) of the EU is that many voices are taken into account when a decision is made.
So my point is that EU policy-makers were in this state of mind : we may consider a shifting in our computer policy, but for that we need to make it clear, just because MS may answer our needs correctly. I think that this lawsuit is a part of this movement.
But the EU can't afford to 'defy' MS, because retaliation would be a disaster, in any form (withdrawal of software, intensifying of industrial-spying, which stays a hot issue between EU and the US, I trust MS to find some awkward ways to do it).
Furthermore, do you think that such a lawsuit is revealed to /. readers at the same moment as it is to MS leaders ? EU and MS are by now negotiating around the terms of an agreement, because the agreement has no importance. What is important here is to say ; hey MS, we're considering other way to comprehend the computer world. This is a signal, sent to both MS and newspaper readers. It doesn't mean a clash, it doesn't mean a shift. It means a possibility that MS may -or may not- be able to tackle well. Shifting to another possibility (ie Linux or similar) is a very expensive and brain-sucking thing to do, so the EU is considering in which ways they could accept to stay in a under-efficient situation.
Taken form this perspective, the EU action means something. And it means a lot ; the way it has been offered to MS is all the same that the recent dispute between US/MS, but the underlying message is all the more different. This is *diplomacy*.
The answer of Microsoft is elusive, for it doesn't say yes or no. It says, basically, piss off, which is very different from a simple no. We just be aware that much things that happen on that level are unknown. Things keep being interesting.

Last but not least, I've red a post saying that MS was not a monopoly. In fact, it was said that is was not a *legal* monopoly. I'd like the writer to understand that reality has not been embedded in an economics book yet. MS, de facto, *is* a monopoly, because the very proper definition of a monopoly implies choice. But not the choice to change the product after you were compelled to use it to understand how your fucking computer work. You may realize that the vast majority of people using computers are not /.ers : there are some people that want their computer to work, pure and simple. It took two months to my mother to understand where the power button was ; she's far from being stupid, but she is not interested in computer stuff, and that's it. So, for her, Microsoft is a fucking monopoly, mainly because all the conditions for making it a practical (by opposition to a theorical one) one are here. I'm not going to enter the details, but just for the anecdote, you'll find that many reports describing the computer world as obscure and te

Re:The EU probably won't do anything to Microsoft.

[etyam]

Actually the EU has a history of taking quite unexpected steps against companies or governments that do not comply with its regulations. It may be very boring and sometimes hard to follow, but the EU (both as an organization and as a trade block) is a true powerhouse when it comes to economics that does not think lightly of splitting up companies, refusing mergers, forcing governments to change centuries old judicial procedures, ban politically sensitive subsidies et cetera. If they set their minds to it, Microsoft may be in for a bigger fight than they were in the United States.

Re:As if this was a bad thing...

[ultranova]

Actually, no. People aren't really stupid; they have just been passivated. The consumer culture in itself is to blame; for most of the people in the western countries, survival doesn't require thinking. In fact, thinking makes it harder to survive; because if you think, and notice things, then you'll also have to act, or become a bitter cynic. So, as the result, we have three classes of people: the ones who don't want to think, the ones who think and become embittered, and the ones that think and act, and are consequently branded loonies or killed outright.

It's actually quite simple: if you can fill your belly without taking any unneccessary risks or expending energy, it would be foolish to not do so. This is perfectly reasonable in a world of scarcity and danger, but, unfortunately, makes people very vulnerable to domination by anyone who can feed them.

So, basically, life is too easy nowadays, and as a result, people have become fat and lazy. They are, as you said, consumers: they consume but won't product, and as a result are completely in the mercy of those who do produce. Why do you think governments and corporations are trying so hard to stop people from producing (with laws like DRM) ? If everyone was actually producing things independently, and as a result be awake, the power would also rest in everyone, and not on those few giants who now wield it. But, unfortunately, it is the human nature to take the path of least resistance at any given choice :(... That's why the Internet is a threat to those in power now: it could potentially make the passive consumers into active producers, and powers-that-be don't want that.

In other words: people aren't stupid, just lazy and selfish.

Re:The EU probably won't do anything to Microsoft.

[10Ghz]

Like when EU blocked the merger of Honeywell and GE? GE is a humungous corporation, yet their plans were thwarted by EU.

Media Player Classic - Alternative to WMP

[Civil_Disobedient]

Those interested in a nicely-hacked, small-footprint version of WMP should take a look at Media Player Classic.

The nice thing about WMP is that it's a self-contained executable, it allows you to add any DirectShow filters you may have installed, supports Quicktime and RealMedia (that's right! get rid of those ugly, bloated pieces of dogshit), as well as DVD support and built-in support for TV cards.

Basically, it does everything, weighs in at under a meg, and looks and feels just like Media Player 6.4. Get it. Now.

Impairing the right to peacably assemble

[SgtChaireBourne]

Good point. It goes even beyond free speech and free press.

" ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble ... "

Online "communities" have been around since before the comercialization of the Internet in the mid 1990s and even long before the WWW in the early 1990s. It is the interchange of data streams using Usenet, MOOs, IRC (and other chat/IM), BBS, Blogs and forums that form "communities". DRM means being able to prevent individuals or groups from forming.

Re:The new Cold war?

[d_strand]

Correct,

however the President of the EU changes every 6 months and has very little power (at present, this might change). He's just a figurehead. The real power is held by the Comission and the minister council (which consists of the leaders of every member state (Blair, Scroeder, etc..))

Re:Microsoft Owns!

[Zemran]

Just because the US government will bend over for anyone with a few dollars does not mean that all governments will. Outside of the US there is a growing tide of opinion against Microsoft. Although I have doubts about the current will of the EU to take tell Microsoft to stop I think the next case will see a shock result...

Operating System

[jotaeleemeese]

Why should you be wondering, when you can actually know ?

Is cd burning part of the OS? The direct instructions that control the burner, yeah, the pretty interface, nay.

Web browser? You must be joking, but hopefully you have been educated....

Re:The headline of this article...

[shrubya]

submitted an article about the kernel backdoor that was thwarted [...] and it got rejected

Perhaps because /. already ran that article a week ago? Overly Critical Guys who cast stones...