Slashdot Mirror
EU's Mind 'made up' on Microsoft
Alain Williams writes "The BBC reports that Microsoft could soon be facing multi-billion euro fines and other sanctions for breaking European competition law.
The European Commission has finished drafting its decision in the case it brought against the software giant." Let's just hope that the EU can fine them cash and not accept Microsoft coupons like the US does. Clearly the best solution to an operating system monopoly is to give free copies of windows to school and eliminate the competition as early in the education process as possible.
I hope the EU goes through with the proposal to force MS to unbundle Media Player. It will be so great to watch them squirm if this happens: there's no technical reason why not (XP Embedded) and it will force their hand over the bundling of IE (again). A large fine will barely dent their $50b cash reserves :-/
England wants to knight him. Europe wants to hate him. Strange.
I want audio and video software as part of my OS, nicely bundled and integrated.
I don't want to a half-baked OS that requires a lot more decisions to get a useful modern OS.
Maybe with MS have been "forcing suppliers to include its own media software", but have MS been preventing suppliers from also supplying other media software? The BBC article does not make clear.
It will be nice though if MS do "reveal more information to its competitors about how its operating system interacts with others and with software applications"
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Meanwhile, Sir William was polishing his diamond swords. They will be distributed among his army of 10,000 lawyers, for nobody shall be permitted to defeat the knight of computer software.
Do you like German cars?
Activate "Operation European Freedom" immediately.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
No other DRM system actually lets you choose your player. iTunes only talks to iPod, at least w/o burning and re-ripping. You want to talk product tying -- MS doesn't even sell an MP3 player, let alone force you to use theirs.
But heh. Don't listen to me. I'm just a hardcore Linux user w/ a half terabyte RAID-5 FreeBSD box with fond memories of his old Apple IIgs days.
Not to mention I think this round of DRM won't end up any differently than it did for DAT/Minidisc/Dataplay -- eventual marginalization vs. products that actually want to work.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
With the Euro on the rise compared to USD, its going to eat a little more of that 50Billion USD pile that M$ is sitting on. Ouch.
Free XBox, PS2
. . .and may demand that it stops forcing suppliers to include its own media software at the expense of competitors such as Real Networks and Apple.
I'm not a great fan of Media Player, though it does it's job pretty well, but doesn't the modern definition of a desktop OS contain a media player?
From what I can tell, the options Microsoft will have would be to either have no media player whatsoever, or a vast myraid of them. I would be willing to guess that MS will take the former option, with a recomended update through Windows update being Media Player.
So, by removing some functionality of the OS, how will this help consumers in general? Indeed will they be more likely to use another media player simply because there isn't one currently available, or will they simply get the recommended one from Microsoft?
So long as a company does business in the European Union, they can fine them. It doesn't matter where your headquarters are based. Microsoft could ignore the ruling, but they would have to stop doing business in the EU altogether.
Microsoft is a legal entity in many EU countries. They have a large presence in Ireland (research & production) and local sales & translation offices almost everywhere.
Rubbish.
The EU isn't afraid of fining European Companies. You just have to look in to Car manufacturers, i.e., BMW, Volkwagan etc.
Plenty of these firms have been fined *heavily* for anti competitive practices and price fixing.
If MS was a European Company, it wouldn't be let off the hook, as it would be seen to be crushing other EU software companies as well...
Microsoft has done much worse things like preventing the sale of naked PCs (do that, and your OEM licence discounts miraculously shrink), embracing and extending everything from Java to HTML and, of course, spreading FUD left right and centre about anything that might threaten Bill's plans for world domination. These are the issues the EU should be focusing on, not whether they bundle a Windows app that plays MP3s.
Oh yeah, and Bill gives loads of money to charity, but there are more tax-efficient ways of giving to charity than overpaying for mediocre software.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Probably not. I think that the best we can hope for is MS being required to publish the file (e.g.: Word or Access) formats and make them available, at little or no cost, for interoperability.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
Gates is getting a knighthood for contributions to international business while at the same time the EU (therefore by extension the UK) is fining microsoft for anti-competitive practices. Don't you just love irony?
Why do none of the remedys require microsoft to release all APIs? This would solve the problems, would not destroy their business but would reduce their ability to harm consumers more than any other action.
Well fines aren't supposed to put a company out of business... If MS has to give up a few billion dollars in cash, you can bet they'll change their ways...
At the very least it will make the stockholders take notice and perhaps even dump if MS doesn't change their ways under a significant penalty.
This is just a ploy by the EU to try and influence global commerce beyond their reach. They want to matter.
Hhhmmmm...
Poor little us, not being big enough to matter to global commerce! Methinks you need to look at some statistics comparing the GDP of the USA with the EU.
And you've been modded as "insightful". I think there should be a new category of mods. "Insightful (American)"
Kids' minds are like sponges. Give them the chance and they can learn a lot, especially when you make the learning fun. This has been shown many times in foreign language education; the eariler a kid starts learning another language, the higher the chance of that kid learning the language and learning it well. The reason why foreign language education still doesn't start at an early age for most children is due to adults' prejudices. They think it's too difficult to learn another language, so therefore it is way too difficult for the kiddies.
It's the same way with computer stuff. Computer-phobe adults are the ones who end up instilling a "fear" of computers in children. You know the drill. "I don't understand computers." "It's too hard to figure out." Because adults think Linux is too difficult (often without trying it first), they think kids can never learn it.
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
Maersk and SAS (the air carrier, not the statistics package or the military unit) was given huge fines by EU for having non-competition agreements. EU is very active on that, in Denmark many age-old trusts have been stopped by the EU.
Airbus is not a monopoly, it is an European attempt to break Boeings monopoly on air planes.
Microsoft is a European company too, having subsidaries in many EU countries. Obviously, it should not be excempt from EU law, just because its headquarter is located elsewhere. Everyone who does business in EU must perform that business according to EU law. I can't see why that could be a surprise to anyone.
And yes, EU based companies has to obey US laws as well, when doing business in the the US. I don't know if anyone of them are dominating enough in the US market to come in conflict with US anti-trust law, but if so, no the EU would not be silly enough to claim that the US does not have the power to enforce US law on US ground. (The US have the power to enforce US law everywhere on the planet and close space, but on US ground, they also have the legal and moral right to do so).
You know I find it interesting that any post that is even slightly anti-*nix and pro-windows gets modded down within a few seconds of posting. People like Windows. If they didn't, they wouldn't buy it. People want a computer to do things for them and not have to do things for their computer. Microsoft provided the masses a way to do this, albeit for a high cost (cash and security).
Win4Lin runs a complete copy of Window98 inside a Linux OS. For $60/copy It re-uses the Windows98 licenses the district already paid for. It runs Office, and photoshop, and AutoCad, and all the stuff they ALREADY PAID FOR.
And what's more, it will run exactly the same way it used to run. No compadibility layer. AND it doesn't run DirectX games.
It's a perfect fix for a lab environment. All of what you need to run. Nothing that you don't need.
Win4Lin also runs will in a X-terminal environment. All those old PC's can be re-cycled as terminals. I use it personally on my Gentoo laptop for all the goofy network tools that haven't been ported to Linux yet. It's hilarious to see a WindowsME desktop right next to a KDE menu.
BTW, I'll be happy to be a reference as a place where Linux runs successfully. I am the Senior Network Engineer at the Franklin Institute Science Museum. I switched our network to Linux before Linux was cool.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
The obvious long-term solution in this "war on IT terror" is for the EU and other nations to rebuild their IT infrastructures cooperatively and relatively inexpensively upon open source foundation. By removing the bottleneck that is at Microsoft Way One, Redmond, countries (incl. the US of A) can launch a renaissaince of innovation and information sharing between countries and individuals while nurturing a more balanced distribution of local employment across the world.
Governments are fundamentally responsible for establishing the basic infrastructure upon which the people can build their lives and business without artificial impediments. Imagine what the life would be like today if printing presses, typewriters and even the lowly sheets of paper had been incredulously controlled by some mediaval robber baron!? Why should one provenly immoral corporation be allowed to "own" the formats in which data (incl. writing itself!) is excanged, recorded and backed up!? It's insane.
The EU is fully capable of first introducing a set of recommendations and later (after the OSS-based support and development structures have been established) requirements for publically-owned and open IT systems that can also be easily adopted by other countries across the globe. Microsoft is fully welcome to participate in this "New Deal" but they must remove their foot from the oxygen tubes or risk becoming totally irrelevant.
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
No, not even that.
AAC is an audio compression format. No more, no less. It's the audio layer from MPEG-4, in fact, and is just as open as MP3. You can rip/convert to and from AAC with no restrictions. (It's not Apple's format: they didn't create it and don't control it -- anyone can license the format and build it into any player; Apple are just another user.)
In particular, AAC itself is unencrypted. No DRM.
What the iTunes Music Store sells are .m4p files: AAC files that have been wrapped in a FairPlay encryption layer. It's FairPlay that stops you playing on other machines &c.
To summarise:
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Europe isn't a borg collective. There are people who have difference opinions. Believe me, more people than not don't like Gates in England. Just because the Queen has given away a KBE doesn't mean that everyone's falling over themselves to grovel at his feet.
As I recall, the US government wasn't particularly harsh on Microsoft. Does that mean all USians adore their products?
With RedHat, Suse, *BSD you can easily strip the application software and leave the kernel bare if so you wish. You have freedom of choice in how your hardware and software resources should work.
Try to uninstall some of the applications from XP. Good luck.
I hope that explains fully the meaning of "bundling" in this context.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"Could this be the start of an open source Windows version?"
Probably not. I think that the best we can hope for is MS being required to publish the file (e.g.: Word or Access) formats and make them available, at little or no cost, for interoperability.
That would actually be worse than the current situation. As things are now, reverse engineered MS formats can be used for GPL projects. If Microsoft releases the file formats but charges a license, even $1, for usage of these formats, it will be incompatable with the GPL and we will be unable to use their formats AT ALL. In fact this seems to be what they are doing with the FAT file system.
Sure they will publish them - then patent them so you still have to license them, and they loose no control. Nothing that has occurred or been proposed as a punishment for anti-completive behavior has made any difference except breaking them up. The MS culture is what drives this, and no directive will change that.
If someone wants to fix it, it would be simple, but MS wouldn't like it at all.
1. Allow MS to bundle and integrate anything they want into the operating system.
2. Require each and every exported function from any DLL, EXE, COM object or anything similar that can be called from outside of that compiled module to be publicly documented as part of the specification.
3. Create one or more third party (non-ms controlled) entities who control the Windows compatible logo certification program, basing their certification on the published API specs from MS.
4. Require MS to be, say, 98% or better compatible on any Windows O/S or product before it ships and allow any other company to certify with no MS input. If an MS product doesn't certify - it doesn't ship. This includes service packs.
5. Require MS to support their O/S even if third party components are installed in place of MS components provided the third party components are certified.
6. Treat failures to interoperate with certified third party products as MS compatibility certification failure - i.e. fix quickly, or stop ship until fixed.
The heights of genius are only measurable by the depths of stupidity
Notethe part: It will also be necessary to take account of the effective economic capacity of offenders to cause significant damage to other operators - in particular consumers - and to set the fine at a level which ensures that it has a sufficiently deterrent effect.
[Please sign here]
You know what I would like to see ... is that Microsoft just pull all copies out of all of Europe and then let Europe experience the horror of trying to use Linux. Sure Linux is good for us nerds, but lets see how much of an uprise there is when the internet market in Europe takes a dive because the mom and pop shops can no longer use the ineternet to place orders and mom and dad can no longer buy their goods off line because they can't figure out how to launch the internet browser.
Creating a good OS isn't hard. Look at BeOS. If Microsoft did pull out all it's copies from Europe, then there'd be a race to see who could fill the gap in the market. Capitalism, you see, when not abused by monopolies, responds well to situations like that. People could use OSX, or a few billion could be thrown toward Linux, and the problem would be solved. The only difficulty is lock-in. If you remove that, Microsoft wouldn't stand too much of a chance. Look at IE compared to Firebird. Clearly the latter is superior, but the former is more widely used. Why? Because Microsoft bundles it in.
You guys all have Microsoft to thanks for the advancement of the internet on the masses and if you think anything else you are crazy and blind. The internet would still be something that is used in the back of corporations down in the basement if it wasn't for Microsoft giving everybody a PC that they could easily use.
This is the same Microsoft that missed the whole start of the home internet revolution? If Microsoft wasn't around, that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be easy-to-use PCs. Hell, there's always Macs, even if you can't accept the possibility that other companies and individuals can design OSes much better than Microsoft can.
Because Media Player and IE themselves are just frontends. They are just wrappers that make calls to system services. In Media Player's case, it's DirectShow, in IE's it's the MSHTML engine. Well ripping these out of the OS is a bad idea since many things depend on them. To remove DirectShow is to break all pro A/V software, alternative media players that use it (such as Media Player Classic), many games, and so on.
Remember: Windows isn't Linux and 99.9% of users don't want it to be. Linux is defined as nothing but a kernel, what you put from there is up to you. So you can have Linux systems with totally different UI's libraries and so on. This is fine for geeks, but frustrating for normal users since you have no gaurentee that you have the dependencies you need (and have to go track them down and download).
Windows (and MacOS, and Solaris, and many others) are defined as not just the kernel, but other associated services and such. It is expected that Windows will have it's GUI, it's HTML rendering and such. It's all part of the OS. While this may be frustrating to geeks, it's precisely what normal users want. They don't want to have a program say "sorry, but I can't run until you download X and Y and Z libraries and get them running on your system". They just want it to run.
The cap is indeed for the turnover over one year and not over the time of infringement. It is a hard cap presumably designed to prevent companies going bust. However, a fine will generally be much lower than this. Usually, the amount of the fine will be determined by the type of infringement, the severity of infringement, the length of infringement and the willingness to co-operate with the European Commission.