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 ;)

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

[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.

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

[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."

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: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.

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.

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: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.

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

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: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: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: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!

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: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: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....

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:Who'll blink first?

[mikeee]

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

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.

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.

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..))