Slashdot Mirror
EU Rejects Microsoft Settlement Proposal
Karl Cocknozzle writes "European Union antitrust officials have dismissed as insufficient Microsoft's offer to settle their most recent antitrust problem in Europe. Spokespeople for the European Commission and Microsoft declined to comment on a report in today's Financial Times that Microsoft had offered to include rival media player software from Apple and Real Networks on a CD-ROM packaged with personal computers to help resolve the case. Previously, the EU had demanded that Microsoft either unbundle Windows Media Player, or also bundle rival media players with Windows. It appears that Microsoft might get more than a slap on the wrist this time around."
Happy Trails!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
I hope the EU also forces Apple to bundle Real with MacOSX as well...
It appears that Microsoft might get more than a slap on the wrist this time around.
It's got to. If the risk of breaking the law and getting caught is not substantially worse than the negative consequences of acting lawfully, then rationally, there is no reason to follow the law. That is what MS has done for years. And if the trend continues, they would be smart to continue doing just that.
I beleive the EU may have this in mind as part of the reasoning for sticking it to them a little harder this time.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
I get the distinct impression the EU is out to make an example of them and fine them ridiculously.
I'm not a Microsoft fan boy, but it doesn't appear to me they are getting a good rap.
I say screw it. Whats happened happened. If Microsoft is bad they will fail all by themselves. They don't need the rule of laws help.
clifgriffin > blog
i would make mr gates walk from normandy to rome giving out cd's with slackware to everyone he sees telling him how sorry he is and how much France can kick his ass...
xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
Now, I'm no Microsoft fanboy, but I really don't see what the big deal is with Windows Media Player. Like somebody pointed out (Monkeyboy Ballmer IIRC), Windows has shipped with a Media Player since Windows 3.1 at least, and nobody's complained about illegal bundling.
...
Of course, what they might be doing (although I haven't been able to find any reputable sources for this) is disallowing OEMs to pre-install, say, Quicktime and Realplayer on the systems they sell. If indeed they're doing this, that is (imnsho) abusing their monopoly, and they should be forced to allow OEMs and others to pre-install whatever software they want.
But to require them to bundle Quicktime/Realplayer/whatever with Windows? That seems wrong on so many levels
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
I would rename my OS windows xp software package. And then release a crappy stripped down good for nothing OS that had no built in functions. I mean, what the people need is a good copy of windows with no internet explorer, outlook express, media player, games (get rid of solitare), defrag (hey its a program they license), ftp, telnet, etc. Just break it up into little pieces, make it basically worthless without the big package, then charge 10X more for the same content. Of couse, I'm 100% evil..but thats besides the point. *disclaimer* ITS A JOKE!
Thank you for contacting Microsoft Sales!
After processing your request, we have determined that your upgrade cost will be:
$12,000,000,000.42.
Thank you,
Microsoft Sales
The simple concept of why a monopoly is treated differently has left some brains in their virginal state.
Most be a calcium overdose....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
M.
--
http://incuso.altervista.org
There is some logic in the US going easy on Microsoft. They aren't nearly as impartial. Microsoft contribute greatly to the US economy, providing jobs, and significant cash/balace of trade inflows.
The EU is impartial, as they doen't receive similar benefits. The end result will be closer to what the US result should have been, but wasn't, unless Massachusetts prevails.
Microsoft had offered to include rival media player software on a CD-ROM packaged with personal computers to help resolve the case.
Who decides which (presumably free) media players go on the CDROM then? Is it just RealPlayer and 1 or 2 others (the major ones) or can anybody get in, i.e. Mplayer and other lesser known media players? And surely Microsoft's own WMP would have stayed the one installed by default, effectively nulling the advantage of having other alternatives available on the CD.
No really, that was obviously a trick to fool the EU antitrust commision. I'm glad they saw through Microsoft's "good will" proposals, unlike their US counterparts.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Let's hope that Microsoft won't be able to buy its way out like it did in the US.
Seriously, I'd like to see Europe calm down Microsoft. Let's them compete on pure merits, and stop quashing competition. One can only hope that in a few years, you will be able to choose between different OS, without locking oneself out of a lot of content.
I know that some alternatives start to emerge, and that you can now play a lot of videos on Linux, but the Microsoft lockin is still very strong.
Europe slapping Microsoft could mean more money from investors in rivals, thus leading in acceleration of competition's offerings.
A good thing, IMO.
Microsoft should be forced to include Virtual PC 2004 with all versions of Windows without limitations. Instead of forcing them to compete with other video players, they should make it so that Media Player ONLY played WMF files. Let the rest come from independent makers. Shouldn't including CDs for other media players with new computers be more the choice of the computer makers (Sellers)? Speak with your dollars. THomas
However, even if they are told to remove their media player, it will most likely be how you can "remove" MS Messenger. Hell, last time I reformated and uninstalled MS Messenger it didn't even delete the icon which as far as I can tell, is all it is supposed to do.
Seems to me that all Gates et al need to do is dig out their notes from the browser battles back in the day.
IE is part of Windows, Media Player is part of Windows, Movie Maker is part of Windows, GoBack^H^H^H^H^H^H system rollback is part of Windows...
It's all the same strategy... stick to the story, and ultimately it becomes The Truth.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Windows comes installed with Notepad, so now Windows comes installed with Notepad, EditPlus and UltraEdit. (even though they are better than notepad) Windows comes installed with MS Paint so can I get Photoshop installed with Windows.
Real is much much worse than even Microsoft. They resembly hackers more than a real software company, and virtualy take over machines they are installed on. Lets get some real competition based upon standards, like MPG, HTML, and not the crap that all tech companies put out that changes ever 3 months. This is the 90's failed way of doing things, build roads, not silicon valley failure.
I hate MS as much as the next guy because of their hideous record when it comes to competition and quality, but since when is bundling QT and RealPlayer seen as a solution to their monopoly? I mean, I want RealPlayer AND WMP both OFF my computer, and not be forced to suffer both of them!
A real solution would be to ship completely without the media player and any DLLs relating to it, and make people download it, or allow OEMs to install a competing player if they so wish. Same should be done for IE. I know that both are buried deep into the system, but it's their problem, not mine.
Additionally, they should be required to disclose their audio and video formats. If they are truly a part of the system, then this information is needed for interoperability. Let's hope we get open file formats, and not RealPlayer rubbish being forced down our throats in addition to WMP!
Will they stick to the punishment. So many things don't these days. I caused a car accident totally not only my car but the other guys car out. It was ugly and obviously totaled. I got a ticket but I ended up with no opints and $145 USD in fines. That's it. My car was totally covered so I just got a new one and went on my merry way. Kids in schools are not even taught punishment anymore. They are taught to have their energy redirected. Will they be able to hold to a punishment??? I hope so but have major doubts.
Evolution or ID?
Before M$ does.
-- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
if they remove win-media player there will certainly be alot less "wrist" "slapping" going on.
I can understand where Bill Gates et. al. are coming from. Most people who use Windows are not very proficient at using various media players. They want to be able to click on a link and automatically have it work AND have it be consistent. Out-of-the-box functionality is what Microsoft is trying to achieve, especially for all of the regular users out there.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, those who need Real/QT can just download it from their respective sites.
I think where Microsoft should really have been hit hard was with the whole IE/Netscape saga. With that, it wasn't simply a matter of not packaging Netscape with Windows, it was a matter of Microsoft's systematic attempt to destroy Netscape as a rival browser.
Ah well, just my 2 cents. And yes, I use Windows at work, but I'm a *BSD guy everywhere else.
... to control the future media distribution standard, and impose a 'Microsoft tax' similar to that they have on PCs today. Its importance to them cannot be overestimated, and they will fight tooth and nail to maintain its position. Robert X Cringely has a very interesting article on Microsoft's media strategy in his ongoing coverage of Burst.com's patent-infingement suit against MS/WMA.
Maybe is microsoft is banned to sell their software to OEM vendors at preferential prices, so as not to give big PC vendors a reason to force people to buy windows PCs, we could atlast have a free market?
Hostes alienigieni me abduxerunt. Qui annus est?
The simple concept of why a monopoly is treated differently has left some brains in their virginal state.
Must be a calcium overdose....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"YOU AGREE TO BE
BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY
INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE
PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL
OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR
PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND."
THAT is in the licensing agreement of Windows. Just for fun and to create a lot of headaches, go to your nearest retailer and tell them to take $200.00 off of the price of a computer you want and to delete windows from the hard drive because you do not agree with the terms of the license. They will jump up and down and say lots of funny things. They will tell you that "we cannot do that". Tell them that they are bound by the license agreement the same as you. Then after they are finished throwing their pop-eyed double-barrelled hissy fit, tell them that you decided that you can spend your $2K elsewhere and that they just lost a sale! It's fun, try it sometime.
I am tired of hearing that "Media Player is not a part of Windows." Does anybody still have their Windows 3.1 disks? Media player is there. Internet Explorer is not.
It's about how tightly they are integrated into the OS. Come on, they can bundle all the software they want. You can't tell them what to put in their own product. However, the thing that bothers me is that they integrate Internet Explorer, Media Player, Outlook, and all their other crap into Windows and make it hard for other programs to achive the same level of integration. For example, in Windows XP Media Player is integrated into IE. Outlook is integrated into the user account. Outlook is speciallized for hotmail.
Unfortunately, I have little faith in the EU to actually successfully force the issue here. As one reader already commented, any restrictions imposed will almost surely never see light in the US.
Far be it from our own congressional leaders or regulators to take any inspiration from a EU success, but that is a separate tangent.
It is my opinion that Microsoft has the monopoly they have at the behest of the consumer market which continues to support their products with dollars or euros in this case. Dollars have always spoken louder than votes, and until a viable competitor arises any regulation/restrictions/bundling/unbundling current or future will be seen as nothing more than a minor set back for Microsoft, not a solution.
The recent success introducing Linux (or any other alternative) definitely suggests that such a thing is not the barrier, rather it is the mind set. It was "marketing", t-shirts and stupid stuff penguins. And it will take something similar, if more tangible to convince CEOs and CTOs that there is a viable alternative to windows. It is rather ironic that they complain with one handand then buy 100K in licenses with the other. It is the responsibility of the entrenched IT community to instigate change where such change is economically viable. This is not a principal issue, but an economic one and the ultimately, the best solution to the problem will win if presented correctly on a case by case basis.
Of course, this all circles back to my original point. Unless, the mind set of the consume is altered (ideally in the work place where I find most of the user trends are set), then and only then will the "monopoly" be broken. Any attempt to regulate/bundle/unbundle Windows and its products will fail so long as the dollar/euro votes continue to pour in.
Just my 2 cents.
If I was running Microsoft, I'd just pull out of Europe.
I am totally against ethically dubious practices to achieve a monopoly. But I don't consider "bundling" anti competitive behavior.
This is just another example of the EU over regulating.
It's one thing to regulate coercion, theft, bribery, blackmail or other things that are (in my opinion) actual crimes. To cross the line into listening to companies when they whine about "anti-competitive behavior" that really isn't unfair is ridiculous. Why aren't they suing BMW for including radios in their automobiles?? After all, it is a "value added" additional component. It's not a car. Why aren't aftermarket car stereo manufacturers banding together to petition the EU to sue BMW??? Why?? Because it wouldn't make sense.
I don't mean to start a flame war, but isn't this Microsoft Monopoly crap getting a little old? Slashdot tends to foam at the mouth every time we hear about something like this, but isn't it time we focus our energy into producing a better product??? There are countless examples (especially in the computer industry) of companies that seemed like monopolies (IBM for example) that were devastated overnight when a superior idea entered the market place. True innovation would render all of this legal schmegal bullshit a total waste of time.
Let's spend our energy on things that will actually make a difference.
~foooo
Buy the computer, and then return it, because you don't agree with the EULA (that you couldn't even read).
So, now M$ has claimed that their Media player is an intregral part of windows and windows would be "substandard" without it?
Interesting argument, much akin to the argument they used about IE.
Now, let's ask a hypothetical question. If this were about automobiles, and the question was about whether or not the manufacturer could force a person to use ONLY the built-in radio what would be the argument?
"Well, judge, if we had to remove the radio, we would also have to remove all the stuff it uses, like the wiring, the alternator and the battery, so the car wouldn't run. So, you see, the radio is an integral part of the car and forcing us to remove it and letting people use someone else's radio would cripple the car."
Absurd? Well, that's exactly what they said about their browser and are now saying about the media player.
It'll be interesting to see what argument everyone falls back on when MS is no longer a monopoly.
I hate to say it, but the Europeans are being too strict with Microsoft in this case, and it is hard to imagine how this remedy makes things easier for the average consumer. They are forcing options on a group of people who are probably already overwhelmed by the technology itself.
While Windows Media player is pure evil forged on a workstation powered by souls of the damned that is used at the peril of one's immortal soul and all that, it is hard to imagine why someone would need 7 different media players on their computer. Joe Average is going to want to play mp3s and videos on his PC, not spend time trying to understand the distinctions between WMA, RMA, MOV, etc.
It just doesn't seem right that choice should be forced on people. If Microsoft wants Windows to default to Windows Media when someone wants to play a CD, I do not understand what the problem is. They built the product, they understand how it works, and they have to field the support calls when someone wants to know why something doesn't work right. If somebody doesn't like it, they can install another player or turn to Linux just as easily.
M
Libertarian?
Microsoft may bundle the media player to gain control, but aren't they also satisfying customer demand? Wouldn't Joe User like to play mp3s and movies out-of-the-box? Isn't bundling more of a convenience in this case?
It may be 'uncompetetive', but surely if RealPlayer or Quicktime were SIGNIFICANTLY better alternatives, and advertised as such, people would voluntarily switch media players. Why do you think iTunes is doing so well?
If anything they should be forced include an uninstaller with WMP.
And why should iTunes or RealPlayer be candidates for bundling? Is swapping one proprietary format for another accomplishing anything?
Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
Common people. Inform yourselves, read, google a bit more.
MS makes deals in which they forbid PC manufacturers to bundle any other software but MS's own.
THus if DEll, HP or another company want to distribute MS Windows *and* a non MS media player, MS will not sign a contract that would allow a manufacturer to do just that.
You may undertand Bill Gates, I also understand Jack the Ripper, and frankly I don't like my understanding of him.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
They make the best OS in the world, and many people will agree with me. Real also makes great software, it's not their falt you're too dumb to set it up correctly. The one media player that really sucks is quicktime. RealOne is way ahead of it in usablility and features. The sheep here may baa about how they don't like it, but they're clueless.
So go tell the EU to go fuck themselves and let MS keep WMP the way it is.
Crap, forget it. I don't have the energy to complete this thought. Mod down appropriately.
They'll get find a way of getting away with it once more... What do you think all those billions in cash are planned for?
BMW is not a monopoly, de facto or otherwise.
BMW is not armtiwsting its distributors to only sell BMW (correction, they were, that was declared illegal in the EU).
How do you call this:" if you don't install my media player you can't bundle Windows with your PCs". Coercion, blackmail come to my mind. Add a monopolistic situation and frankly I don;t know from which planet you are coming from (are you some kind of hyper monopolistic Klingon or what?).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The OEMs would be free to ship with no operating system, but would probably want to ship *something*, so they may choose a Linux desktop. If Be were still around, this might have changed their fate, or perhaps Apple might choose to release OS X for x86.
A variant would be to prohibit site licenses or other volume discounts for Windows.
In exchange, Microsoft can "innovate" all they want, if that's truly what they think they're doing.
I'm not a Mac user, but if you buy a new Mac (with a Mac OS, obviously), won't is have iTunes and iPhoto and the rest of the i-programs installed on it?
If so, I don't really get how Microsoft's bundling of WMP with Windows is any different.
Which is secret APIs, codecs and file formats.
Open these up and Microsoft could bundle any damned thing they want and not be able to effectively leverage their monopoly status.
Bundling competing super secret (and often viral) formulas only compounds the issue, not relieve it.
Free standards means free competition.
KFG
In Windows 3.1, there was no Windows Media format, and there certainly was no DRM. The player isn't the problem, it is Microsoft's ability to leverage their marketshare to push out open multimedia formats in favor of their own.
Now you can argue that there will always be alternatives, but the company with the huge advantage in the Operating System marketshare should not be able to use that monopoly power to kill competition in other areas such as multimedia. Remember, it isn't illegal to be a monopoly, it is illegal to abuse that monopoly power. Which Microsoft has done, and continues to do.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
From the Jan., 2004 Joint Statement on Final Disposition (linked above under "slap on the wrist")
Um... Why would SCO license SRV/4 code and patents to microsoft? {tin foil hat} I sense an anti OSS conspiracy at work {/tin foil hat}
I agree 100%. Economically, a monopoly has no competetitors. But MS must battle competetitors all the time. I think what pisses most people off is that they don't make a better product to compete, but instead use conniving tactics. Nevertheless we have seen even the most towering monoliths of the marketplace, like IBM. Scarcely anyone actually analyzes why people are using MS and NOT other products. We all know MS products are bad, so why does no one use the alternatives: 1. Too expensive (OS/X) 2. Unknown to them (Linux) 3. Not as user friendly (Mandrake vs. XP) I don't think there's been an operating system that meets all this critereia. Notice it's not even important to make a GOOD product, just one that works. And XP, despite the security threats, worms and bugs, works for most people. I'm still waiting for the Linux community to make something as ingenious as plug-and-play. It's a lot harder to make something user friendly that programmer friendly.
Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
I have to give you props for what is, in my opinion, the nerdiest sig I've ever seen.
The EU Commission on Competition is about to rule on Microsoft's ongoing antitust issues. Part of the complaint is based inclusion and tying of it's Mediaplayer to the Windows OS platform. Essentially a replay of the Netscape affair.. Microsoft still faces some competition in streaming media from Apple's Quicktime and to a lesser extent Real Realplayer mediaplayers,but Microsoft, though it's position as dominant desktop platform, is gaining the lions market share. Other vendors hardware based audio/music players, either proprietary DRM based such as Apple's IPod or various MP3 players are for the moment holding their own in the marketplace.
Microsoft's negotiated settlement with the US DOJ and the settling US State Attorney Generals teminates after five to six years.If Microsoft remains unconstrained by either the EU or the US DOJ, it would be free to use the same tactics has it has done with the X-Box. Microsoft could use it's billions ripped from dominating the desktop market to subsidize streaming content providers bandwidth and flood the market with proprietary Microsoft-protocol-only mediaplayer hardware. Given the ongoing downward trend in chip prices, in five to six year time, Microsoft could easily afford to virually give away the hand held mediaplayers.
Attempting to regain a foothold back into such a Microsoft dominated market would be even more difficult than competing against Microsofts desktop monopoly is today.
Which gives me the segway to repost a "Lambaste from the past"
If EU stands firm then we could actually see alot of innovation in software. As it is, innovators cannot compete with bundling. And don't. In fact, making it illegal to give away software - anybody - would be a huge boon to the world as technology would start to progress.
Clearly most people in this newsgroup do not realize that software is a hell of a lot different than selling a car or milk. For decades now companies have been touting the computer as "the communications appliance" and now the bandwidth is starting to make it possible. By controlling what people can see then a company can control what people can buy. That's the big idea. Imagine if IE tracked everything you did and reported it to one company. Well, that's what media player can do.
This is a very big issue socially and quite independent from the monopoly issue.
Clearly the correct answer is to separate MSFT into two companies. One being an OS company and not being allowed to bundle non-OS products like a web browser, a media player, and a word processor. Once the OS company no longer has a monopoly then it can apply such trade practices.
But seriously, bundling is here to stay and all we can hope for is that Microsoft gets some good movies online before the Bollywoods and others of the world start to gain market share.
Let's just hope MSFT is stupid enough not to start selling Linux in a few months/quarters.
Just what I need... even more crap I don't need included on the disc.
I want one browser, one media player, one mail client, one firewall, etc... if Microsoft wants to include that, fine. If not, I'll get it from someone else. Either way, I don't want to have to clean off all their competitors' products that were forced to be bundled as well. (Just as bad is when MS dumps duplicates in themselves - no, I don't want MSN Explorer.)
I mean, MS is a US company, so I can see where we have the authority to order their break-up, but I wonder what international law says about this?
teh US says "ok, no break up"
but if the EU says "break-em up"
does that mean that if MS wants to do buisness in the EU, there must be other EU companies that sell and develop MS software indipendent of MS?
which would mena they could compete directly with MS in the US while MS cannot exist in the EU as an entity.
weird.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
And support PC manufacturers that do not bundle MS Windows by default ( Shuttle comes to mind here, but there are many others).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That is one of the arguments of Real's ongoing suit against Microsoft (they sued 18 Dec 2003): "Other charges allege that Microsoft used contractual restrictions and financial incentives to "force PC makers to accept Windows PC operating systems with the bundled Windows Media Player and to restrict the ability of PC makers to preinstall or promote competing digital media players." - CNet News
... is levy an extra tax/duty against every copy of Windows sold, whether retail or upgrade or OEM, about 300 Euros and make the consumer pay for this. That will encourage the consumer to look at other OS platforms.
Next story: Pentium wristwatches to run Windows...
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
Microsoft is sitting atop tens of billions of $ that isn't is no longer in circulation.
Really, I think the U.S. going easy on Gates is simply our corrupt rich leaders scratching the back of another rick man. I really don't see how it could be taken any other way.
You do realize that the Republican party, before large corporate interests took over, was very supportive of anti-trust law. Some of the most well thought of Republicans were big supporters.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Heh. Shuttle don't even bundle a CPU, RAM, or hard drive! (Note: I'm not complaining.)
The big OEMs, the Dells and Gateways sell to the everyday user who just wants to plug the box in and start interwebbing.
...to be done is to make this a prohibited thing. All machines must be sold empty and the customer must be made to pay the real, full cost and see each item whether it be software/hardware/services itemized onto his sales receipt. The big OEM's can sell machines will all kinds of crap loaded, but the y must fully disclose the cost of eqach item or service that is included, and the O/S must by law sell for exactly the same price as the boxed set off a retail store shelf.
That'll fix things up much more fairly.
Good riddance! Unfortunately, I don't think microsoft would actually abandon the largest market in the world.
I am totally against ethically dubious practices to achieve a monopoly. But I don't consider "bundling" anti competitive behavior. This is just another example of the EU over regulating.
That's funny, cause that was exactly the reason for US DoJ anti-trust case against microsoft: ms leveraged monopoly in one market (desktop OS) to gain monopoly in another (web browsers). It was web browsers then, it's media players now. Microsoft was found guilty, and, as a punishment, was required to primise not to do it again.
Why aren't they suing BMW for including radios in their automobiles?? After all, it is a "value added" additional component. It's not a car.
Is BMW a monopoly? Are they trying to "cut off the air supply" to a competing radio manufacturer?
I don't mean to start a flame war, but isn't this Microsoft Monopoly crap getting a little old?
Yeah, cause we all know that if we just stop saying that then microsoft will not be a monopoly any more! I mean DoJ seems to think so...
There are countless examples (especially in the computer industry) of companies that seemed like monopolies (IBM for example) that were devastated overnight when a superior idea entered the market place.
You mean like the way mozilla took over IE's market share as soon as it was released? Oh wait... Let me spell this out for you: you cannot compete with a monopolist on the basis of better products that compete in the same market. That is why we have the rules to restrict abuse of monopoly.
BTW, the only reason IBM lost the market power it had is that the market became (mostly) irrelevant. IBM still has monopoly in mainframes (which is what they were sued for), but mainframes are disappearing. It has absolutely nothing to do with building a better product.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Providing alternatives to the default applications is one thing; moronic consumers who know nothing about computers and do not bother learning about their alternatives is quite another.
You cannot legislate the stupid out of the masses.
Microsoft said only that it 'continues to work actively with the European Commission toward an amicable settlement in this case.'
An amicable solution huh? Hahahaha. Oh, the arrogance... It seems that Microsoft just does not 'get it' - this commision could care less about what they (Microsoft) want. Bill and company are still trying to argue their case in spite of the fact that the EU seems to have already made up its mind - MSFT is going to have to do a lot of things it does not want to do - the only question now seems to be whether they are going to have to pay billions in fines as well.
They're just having all *kinds* of problems nowdays, huh
C|N>K
Why don't MS just buy Europe and get over with it. Maybe they could purchase Europe and bundle it with the OS.
How often after getting a speeding ticket do we think to ourselves "Why don't cops go solve REAL crimes".
I think this applies here as well. Why should it be up to a government or court to decide whether or not a company is allowed to be independantly successful or not. Whatever happened to free enterprise?
I can't wait to buy a 6 pack of Coke only to find a can of Crab Juice and a can of Mountain Dew in it.
I will be very happy if EU make MS bundle Mplayer ;)
At least according to American (and apparently European) courts. Microsoft is, in fact, a monopoly.
On a side note. When a monopoly is leveraged it starts affecting other markets, not just the one it currently occupies. Revenues from the Microsoft OS let them loose money everywhere else to stifle competition. Which is why hinging on single issues with a monopoly won't have a detrimental affect to it's continued status as such.
What the chairman of Microsoft believes or doesn't is irrelevant, as the actions of the corporation as a whole are in question.
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
MS should be forced to incorporate a lot of other software packages too...those not on disk should be availible from MS's web site automatically or shipped free anywhere (in the world), from MS itself.
Is that Windows is an operating system. An operating system is a kernel, a boot loader, and a set of utilities to make a computer work. In no way is a media player, a web browser, or any other value-added piece of software part of an operating system. In no way is a media player or a web browser required for a computer to function.
By adding these types of applications into the operating system Microsoft blurs the definition of operating system. Microsoft also leverages these applications for their own benefit. By defining Media Player as an integral part of the operating system, and then leveraging it for their own DRM stuff, they are exerting monopoly power.
I hope the EU sticks it to them. Microsoft deserves to pay for the monopoly they have gotten through coercion of OEMs and preying on users who don't know better.
I at the time I post this no submission has touched the EULA / DRM issue as discussed on /.
rather non-controversially.
:).
I did not find a hint when RTFAing as well.
However, some issues are touched here.
I wonder wether the EU authorities in charge really see all the intricacies, can hardly believe so but still have hope that they will take care of some freedom for the masses that at the time being have no chance to even think of installing an alternative OS on an x86 box (just had a date with a female colleague from the therapeutic branch who has a hard time to identify a link in an e-mail
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
... if billy boy thinks windows is so much better than Linux, and he keeps getting in trouble for having it preinstalled, then why doesn't he agree to have Linux preinstalled, and include a windows cd?
warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
I hate Windows Messenger. I hate the damn sticky key feature. I hate most of the accessories. Now, WMP ain't so bad, but BSPlayer is what *I* need. Did I mention ActiveX? Damn, I learned to hate IE... but, of course, is needed to patch Windows. MSN explorer? You keep it!
But, of course, to uninstall some of those you need to sell your first born male child... and the others (hint: IE) are just plain uninstalable.
You know what? It's an operating system. Bane EVERYTHING that's not using and following open protocols. TCP/IP? open - leave it. Outlook Express that connects to hotmail? Proprietary - erase it. IE? kind of uses open protocols, but we know it's not following standards. Bane it, or force them to change it. Oh, they want proprietary stuff? Ok, no prob, but not in the OS I paid for.
And, BTW, a ssh client would be nice, not to mention the daemon... I mean server.
Bite my shiny metal... oops... Nevermind!
Long live the free market! Now, I bet since you are so much smarter than all the "morons" that are incompetent at competing with Microsoft, you will go and invent your own operating system and get really bloody rich! Yeah!
Lalala
Remember from the DOJ settlement...
Anything MS offers for "free", without it being separately SOLD off the shelf can BE INCLUDED IN THE OS! I think there was a waiting period built-in, but if they never market it separately, then they can include as part of OS.
A slick behind-the-back-pass developed by MS lawyers, duping the DOJ negotiators into thinking this "was a good thing".
Just watch how many of MS' "product innovations" are offered for FREE, downloadable or packaged on the CD.
All they need is about a year or so of that, and it becomes part of the dark side...
I mean, seriously
Can anyone name a self-described "media player" that is more intrusive, disruptive, invasive, obnoxious than real player? I sure as hell can't.
EU ordering Microsoft to include spyware within their operating system -- 'spying' for a competing company no less? This is obsurd.
Maybe as terms of settlement, Microsoft should force each individual responsible for handing down this "ruling" to install Real Player on all of their personal machines.
This whole thing with the E.U. and M$ is nothing more than just the E.U. gov officials wanting *their* payoffs, just like the U.S. gov.s' politicians get. Notice that there has been *NO* talk of opening proprietary file formats, API specs, or anything that would *really* affect M$'s monopoly position, or it's ability to lock in customers, and lock out competition. The E.U. (the politicians) just wants a piece of the action. After a bit of haggling, and some strategic payoffs, M$ will continue on just as it has always done. *IF* the E.U. actually tried to affect M$'s monopoly status, the U.S. would retaliate against E.U.-based corps, and even governments. This is just a show, to distract the people, while the E.U. politicos and M$ negotiate a payoff.
Seriously though, the problem is not the bundling of Windows - most non-geek people actually want it bundled for convenience. Rather, it is the clause in Microsoft's OEM agreements that says "if you want to ship any PCs with Windows at all, you must include an OS with *all* of your PCs".
That's why Dell are shipping their new 'OS free' nSeries with FreeDOS included in the box (but not installed) - it's a clever sidestepping of their contract with MS. Of course MS should never be allowed put this sort of clause into an OEM contract in the first place.
Shuttle can do what they do only because they don't sell PCs with Windows at all.
What a concept.
I don't see any reason why MS should have to bundle someone else's media player with their operating system. I wouldn't buy a Ford car expecting them to give me the option of installing a Chevy seat; nor, more appropriately, would I expect them to put a Toyota cd-player in it. A media player is not something that is even remotely difficult to download from somewhere else. Many of the sites use RealMedia or Quicktime only feeds, so you have to get an alternate player anyway. I know everyone likes to take shots at MS, but this is just stupid.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
Paraphrased:
-
"The definition you like is Not Scottish!"
-
"My definition is Scottish!"
Brilliant parody of logical argument!(What? What do you mean "I wasn't trying for parody"?)
We are the Music Makers, and We are the Dreamers of Dreams...
Sure, I agree. We should leave them alone and let them live and die without the law mucking things up.
The only thing is, it isn't fair to use patent and copyright laws to prop them up and have no laws to punish misbehavior. Wipe out all the anti-trust penalties and all the copyright laws and Microsoft will be gone in a few years.
If they are still around, they might actually have to think about serving their customers, not screwing them at will. Who knows.
Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
I hear people complaining that Netscape and other products died because of the free market. Well they are partially right. Netscape was a pay for product. Along comes Microsoft and releases a free product that at the time was inferior to Netscape (still is IMHO) and gives it away free and then bundles it with their OS.
This may be fine for some people until Microsoft large feet step on you. Stacker was a good example, Stacker was making money hand over fist until MS released "their" version as a part of DOS. Stacker was no longer needed and sales dropped dramatically. Turns out that MS used Stackers own code and were too lazy to even change part of it to keep Stacker from finding out. Thanks to its deep pockets MS dodged the bullet and paid them off...Stacker died.
If you ran a bakery and I opened one next to you and gave everything away for free you would pitch a fit and try to have me closed down. If I copied your best seller by letting you do the ground work and then gave it away for free you would sue me. The customers could care less they get it for free but when your money is on the line it is a different story.
I hope the EU sticks to its guns. MS has had this coming for a while and it is nice to see that they can't buy their way out of every problem they make.
Not convinced
IANAD (I am not a developer) but surely API's for things like the interface by which Internet Explorer passes webpage sounds to Media Player are only of use if you wish to design, from the ground up, a replacement for WMP
The truth is that the major "other" applications are pre-existing cross-platform apps (RealPlayer, Quicktime) and applications which don't handle the wide scope of formats used by WMP (iTunes, Musicmatch, Winamp)
My point is that to the developers of crossplatform apps or those for a limited range of file-types, the underlying API will not be as much a revelation as a small convenience, Crossplatform apps don't probably want large chunks of Win32 API to reimplement on their other platforms and limited-scope players cant handle everything the API passes anyway
A further concern is that Microsoft might NDA the API's in a fashion that makes the developers who see them incapable of working on Opensource projects or projects for other Operating Systems.
Ergo, my opinion, better to give the customer and the OEM builder freedom of choice for now and let the market develop from there. There are many mature Media Players already, the problem they face is having to be chosen by the end-user. Better API access won't change that.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Looking at the number of companies or governments we hear about making the switch to linux (and the size of those rollouts), the number of linux distros and the number of boxed copies of linux on the shelves down at my nearest PC superstore, I wouldnt exactly be comfortable in calling MS a monopoly now. 4 years ago maybe, but not now. I personally beleive that governments should leave MS alone, people can and do install other players as they want to, or they use the built in ones. This is over regulation to the hilt, and they should concentrate on regulating the non luxury items markets, such as food or medicine.
probably not. Only if they place a crazy tarrif on us that goes around some previous agreement. I dont see that happening. The US goverment isnt gonna stick up for MS.
See Sig! See Sig Zig! Zig Sig Zig!!!!!
The submitter wrote:
It appears that Microsoft might get more than a slap on the wrist this time around.Don't bet on it! With the upcoming enlargement of the EU on the agenda, the EU has already stated that they wish to speed things up and get this thing out of the way, in time for the acceptance of the new member states into the EU. The result could be an unfavorable settlement before May 1st - in other words another slap on the wrist.
During the time when my country had the EU presidency back in 2002, everybody was quite busy completing the negotiations with the new member states and as a result the EUCD didn't get enough careful attention. In the eleventh hour on december 22nd 2002 Denmark voted for the directive, turning 180 degrees from a solid majority against it? We were the first country to vote on this issue and I fear it did set a bad example for the other countries who voted next.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
Part of me does not like the evil microsoft corporation. Then again another part of me thinks... It's their windows, its their media player, if other companies dont like that they include it in their OWN product, well screw them let them develop their own OS, gain market share off of that then bundle in whatever they want to. To me it just doesn't make sense that microsoft cannot/(should not?) be able to include, well, whatever the heck they want to include in their own products. I understand that its all antitrust bs and total market obliteration.... but screw it, people DONT have to get windows, they can get something else. bleh. -- No spellchecker on /., and I dont hcekc pleslnig
EU will proudly state we want 10-20 billion dollars. Gates will say no, because he will not forfeit his fortune to some Europeans.
MOD PARENT UP FUNNY
Ever since I discovered this little gem, my need for other players has been rare indeed. In fact, the only occasions on which I've needed any other media players is to play ASX or WMV files. I also have Quicktime Alternative and Real Alternative installed for good measure. Incidentally, these downloads come packaged with the ability to install Media Player Classic, albeit not necessarily the latest and greatest version.
You yourself have assosiated monopoly with monopolies via legistlation. However there are other kinds of monopolies too.
when everyone gives everything, then everyone everything will get
Here you're talking about tools for BMP and TXT though. These are standard file formats where there are many tools available to read and write them available on all platforms. The stuff microsoft provides simply does the bare minimum. The old media player in Windows was the same. It played MPG, AVI, and WAV and not much else. However, with all the streaming technologies out there, they made WMP something to actually compete with the other tools, and thats where the problem comes in. WMV and WMA are directly competitive technologies that only WMP can play. Since its installed, why use something else? The EU has a much better argument against Microsoft on this point than they had back in the browser war days since the web uses a somewhat "standard" format.
- gtaluvit (prnc. GOT-tuh-LUV-it)
So we're supposed to feel sorry for the guy just because he's a small cog in the Microsoft machine?
Hopefully, when the manager asks how that sale he saw him working on turned out, the salesman will say, "I almost had it, but then he started talking about this 'Linux' thing and he didn't like my answers and wandered off."
Now what will the manager do with this info? Any decent sales manager will be keeping tuned to customer demands.
(I once was at a trade show, and asked a guy in a booth if his product worked under Linux. He said no, but it was coming in 3 months. I mentioned this to a friend, who told me he met the same guy the day before, who had told him Linux support was coming in 6 months! Now, it could've been just vaporware, but at least the guy was picking up on the fact that some potential customers were interested in Linux support.)
Imposing "sanctions" on an American corporation doing business in their countries is equivalent to a tariff. We need to hit back and hit HARD. Perhaps it is time to start a public boycott campaign against european software.
Microsoft could bundle linux on their CD's too.
This way nobody would ever suit them again.
First I wanted to be a chef. Then I wanted to be Napoleon. My ambitions have continued to grow ever since.
Then again you are misreading what I said.
Ask any historians what happens to Monopolies.
They die. A monopoly can only be sustained by force (ie, consumers or legal actions)
Even those that screw the consumer in the short run die. The only lasting monopolies are government run. (US Postal Service)
Microsoft is going to lose their monopoly. They can't keep the ball running eternally. It won't happen because the EU slaps a retarded fee on their backs (which will no doubt get passed on to the consumer).
The simple fact is, if their product sucks as bad as we all know it does it won't keep the consumer's interest. They are going to move on. It may seem like it is a slow process but it is picking up speed.
What some seem to miss is the fact that having a monopoly is not patently illegal. In order to take legal action the government must be able to prove that the company is screwing their customers by abusing their market position.
I personally don't feel that any of the unethical, standard hijacking things they've done qualify as monopoly abuse given the nature of the service they provide. (I say Microsoft should be able to control the software that is run on their system just like Coke can sue the pants off you if you put peps in their coolers)
That will be for the courts to decide but I don't really trust them these days. They seem more interested in punishing smart business moves. I've never felt that fines punished anyone but me. I highly doubt the execs at Microsoft are going to say, "We'll just take this one for the team. We deserve it." They'll get that money back one way or another. It won't be to my benefit.
clifgriffin > blog
Troll! Krama whore
Let me rephrase that for you:
Now imagine that Ford makes the engine and parts for nearly every other car in the world. And, imagine they 'force' all the other car manufacturers, except Toyota, to use their engine and parts.
That's the difference.
And of course, if you tried to put a new CD player in your car made of Ford parts, it'd play at half the speed and crash your car repeatedly.
Seriously though, Apple has nowhere near the monopolistic power that Microsoft has - and probably never will (which is good by me).
Not to mention that you can, without effort permanently remove the Apple products you mention without harming the system and/or user alternate software.
Try removing IE from Windows and see what happens.
I think you musta got a bad Mac from the factory, because every one I've ever bought (5 so far) has had the OS preinstalled :)
If you need reference for the legality of a monopoly in regards to consumer interest, please check out US vs. E.C. Knight.
Here's a link to get you started...
http://www.landmarkcases.org/gibbons/usec.html
It was the supreme courts opinion that there was no evidence that EC Knight was attempting to restrict trade or commerce with their market share. Therefore, EC Knight was allowed to merge giving them a 95% share in sugar manufacturing in the US. Less than 30 years later their share was down to 20%.
All through the natural forces of the market.
Anyhoo, just some thoughts.
clifgriffin > blog
...that people are used to WMP. If the next version of Windows they buy doesn't have any media player or has a different one, they will just get confused. It's too late to do this now, it needed to be done 9 years ago.
"But I'm still right here, giving blood and keeping faith. And I'm still right here."
Hi, ./ people ! (sorry if my english is bad :-P )
...
...
Here, from the Old Europe, we are contemplating this conflict with hope.
But the REAL problem is this : you say "computer", and most people think "Windows"
We must fight this evil association; until we show users that there is something outside Windows, Microsoft will maintain the monopoly.
Information is power, and Microsoft hide the outside world from users. Linux, multiple variants of BSD and more OS' aren't the remedy by themselves; if users don't know about them, all the efforts against Microsoft's monopoly will be unuseful.
Information is the key
Microsoft was guilty of this many many years ago, and was taken to court. Today, you can bet that Microsoft ensures that teams like MS Office see only the public APIs they're supposed to be using.
Does that mean they don't have an advantage? Of course they do! They can debug with full access to the Windows source code! They can phone up the developer responsible for a particular API and say, "What gives with this error code I'm seeing?" They can file bugs in the internal database when they see something is wrong, and push hard to have their bug fixed ASAP. All of these are advantages, but they are emphatically not illegal. It's called in-house development.
If you could catch a non-bundled application like Microsoft Word using undocumented or private internal APIs today, you would make big news. But until then, quit blabbing on about stuff that happened 8 years ago and has been addressed.
I'm sorry, I find it a clear case FOR anti-trust issues that microsoft, a SOFTWARE company (mice dont count imho), has the gall to say that they will gladly bundle a CD with our new HARDWARE. If this happened before a judge and that judge were me: Excuse me? Your market control is so deep that you can influence hardware distribution? Is this already included in your contracts with every existing pc hardware manufacturer or did you contact all of them individually before making this settlement offer? It's kinda sad that they can even try that. Content production/distribution monopolies have already ruined the movie and cable industry imho...it's not surprising it's in the computer industry...but it's a wee bit more blatant.
All your preview button are belong to Hello Kitty.
This means a lock in to one proprietary format, and locks out other formats.
Hold on pardner... There's no need to have IE built into Windows, as anyone with any programming knowledge knows. ("Anyone" evidently does not include Bill Gates nor most US judges.)
Apple has a framework for rendering HTML, for example, that anyone can use. But Safari, Apple's browser, can be removed from the system, replaced with Mozilla, Omniweb, or any other choice.
That is the difference between MS and Apple. Apple includes their own app, but you don't have to use it or even have it installed. MS insists that their app must be installed or everything breaks.
yeah, i guess its not out of the relm of possible outcomes. I personally think the Government shouldnt do anything unless it becomes a large scale economic issue. If they just fine the bejesus out of MS I'd be ok with it. They need a little slapping around.
See Sig! See Sig Zig! Zig Sig Zig!!!!!
The OSS comunity really hasent done much to help the file format argument ..
.. Oh well I want to be able to copy their movies and share them with everyone..
Yes we have lots of open formats that handle most everything.. Except what the Movie and Music distrobuters want.
If we want Movie Makers to release there movies in an open format so that we can play them then sorry we have to compromise and provide a open format that gives them the copy protection they want.
The only real argument against doing that is
The day the OSS comunity provides a open source protected format that is the day we can convice the lawmakers that we really want to support the copyrights of artists. Then maybe we can encourage small time independent artists to compete using our formats..
If anything, Microsoft should be forced to change their WindowsUpdate.microsoft.com site, which only "works" under IE.
I think microsoft is lying when they say windowsupdate only works on IE. I thought WindowsUpdate used ActiveX...so ActiveX only comes with IE? don't think so.
Any idea why windowsupdate only works on IE? Other then the fact that Microsoft monopolizes everything.
I *AM* a child-abusing priest, you insensitive clod!!
Stacker had a patent which covered realtime disk compression AS A WHOLE, not just their implementation. MS did their best to avoid infringing, but it seems that it was one of those "wheel" patents which cover everything under the Sun. I'm not saying what happened to Stacker was right, but there was NO outright code theft as many seem to think.
Hey, they've already released the source to part of NT4.0 and Windows 2000... what more could EU want?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
IANAD (I am not a developer) but surely API's for things like the interface by which Internet Explorer passes webpage sounds to Media Player are only of use if you wish to design, from the ground up, a replacement for WMP
That and the codec, and a ground up replacement for for WMP is trivial. Musicmatch and WinAmp could impliment it within a couple of days.
That's the point.
A further concern is that Microsoft might NDA the API's in a fashion that makes the developers who see them incapable of working on Opensource projects or projects for other Operating Systems.
This my concern, i.e. the current situation. It is not a free and open standard. Opening the standard means publishing it publicly. Publish it publicly and MS (or Real or Apple) has no innate advantage. Anyone, including the average teenager, could write a compatible player.
The only reason Real, Windows Media and Quicktime exist is to not be an open standard. They have no other purpose.
KFG
I've been wondering about this. I visited the Microsoft Update site the other day, to download something for my WinXP box. While there, I noticed that some of the security patches go out of their way to say that they are necessary for any PC with Internet Explorer version n installed, even if you don't use it as your web browser.
If the very presence of the software on my machine can cause a security vulnerability, that's surely a compelling argument that just optionally removing the front-end (basically a couple of icons and some menu entries) but still leaving the back-end around is not an adequate standard of "independence".
That's on top of the irritating way that options in Outlook Express now seem to be affected by what the user does in Office, and can't be changed back within OE itself, or the way that resizing the text in IE seems to affect help viewed in numerous other apps, again requiring some relatively fiddly setting to revert it to normal, which in turn reverts IE anyway.
One of these days, I really will get around to intalling a Linux distro on that 25GB partition I've been leaving aside on my new (a year ago...) PC. :-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
That's true, but there's no technical reason Gecko couldn't support the same HTML-based help format, and thus no technical reason a component installed with the Mozilla suite couldn't offer the same interface to other applications as the IE-based one, with all the attendant improvements in standards compliance, reliability and flexibility that would come with that.
The user interfaces may be only 1/10 of the issue, but that doesn't mean you couldn't replace the other 9/10 with something superior as well. Microsoft simply chooses to structure their OS and its included services in such a way that it's not easy, and to withhold information that would make it easy.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The problem is with each version of MS Windows comes a whole new set of applets that intrude on an existing market. Since MS gives them away for free the other players go out of business. This kills diversity: consumers who usually drive the market are shut out of the process and then MS moves on to dominate another market. With out any other forces at work M$FT would own the entire computer: the DOJ acting as a minor speed bump. M$FT would be in a position then to control all how you use your media and control who can sell it and who can buy it and dictate its onw profits. M$FT has managed to become both autocracy and parasite.
SOMEBODY needs step up and slap MS down a peg or two. The Justice Dept had them dead to rights before the hanging chads coronated Dubya President and the Feds rolled over an played dead. Microsoft's strategy makes perfect sense - use your dominance in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another area and wipe out the competition. Real Player, Quicktime, Windows Media Player and even Winamp have all been fighting a Multimedia War for Control on the desktop for years. They all want to make themselves the default application for most multimedia filetypes. Bundling WMP with the OS definitely puts Microsoft in a better position to become the default standard - at least for people with only half a clue.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
This would never happen, but I've often wondered what the aftermath would look like in this situation:
EU say MS has to do a bunch of stuff. Package a lot of competative software, pay a large fine, etc...
What would happen if MS says... "No thanks. We will no longer sell our product here. Here is your money, goodbye."
Everyone over there is screwed. All businesses lose there licence and would be in breach of contract. No more updates for personal computers running MS. A new worm comes out and everyone kisses their data goodbye...
Be intersting.
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
The compete on price myth. This is the problem - it's not freeware. By its "Microsoft designated" nature it's not freeware. Why do I say this? Because according to Microsoft, it's an integral part of Windows, and Windows isn't free. Same with IE - it's not free, it's part of Windows. So the cost is hidden in the Windows price. You paid for it already, because you had no choice.
So they give it away as part of windows. The trouble is, they are selling an operating system. Where is the line drawn? According to Microsoft's reasoning here, any software the user finds useful could potentially be "part of Windows"!
The majority of people involved in the industry however, would consider a browser, a media player, etc to be an application, and as such a separate program to the OS. So this is a problem. Microsoft can throw $700M+ at developing IE, and give it away for free, because they know they recoup the money in Windows sales. Assume that it isn't part of the OS and this is a classic case of dumping - which is illegal.
Going back to your analogy, how is this better for consumers? Legitimate competition is quashed. The next MobileCoffeeCo won't bother, as they know they will be "free addon'ed" out of the market. And without them, there won't be an incentive to add that functionality, so we the consumer won't get it, because BMW will not then need to add it.
There is only one way to fix this. Spin off the OS division as a separate company, and force the rest to compete on their merits. It won't kill Microsoft - look at the telecom companies - they are still around decades after they were split.
http://crn.channelsupersearch.com/news/crn/47630.a sp
Can't quote for copyright reason.
T
The gist of it it that Microsoft will probably be fined roughly 100-125 Million USD in the EU according to an unnamed source within the administration.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As long as the penaly is lower than the prize, Microsoft will keep doing it. DoJ and Court of Appeal really dropped the ball. In the Netscape suit, MS was found guilty for bundling, but did they even ask MS to unbundle IE from Windows? No. It's like a thief who got caught promises not to rob as a penalty in exchange for a license to steal.
The penalty does not prevent future violation and does not address the current injury done to the competitor. For a browser monopoly, it's well worth it for MS to sign yet another consent decree they promptly violate. The same thing will happen over and over until somebody has the cojones to levy a penalty heavier than the prize. I hope EU does since the US Court of Appeal and DoJ proved that they were eunuches.
You are forgetting your operating system history.
/WINNT or another folder, doesn't matter, it's just one API, and whether it's over here or over there makes no
Things like Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player have become part of the operating system? Why? It's good for developers. Need to view a HTML or XML based helpfile? Just use the built in Windows functions.
Hogwash. The browser and the player were previously separate apps which MS decided to wire into the O/S as an end-run around the consent decree and the subsequent actions in which Netscape was involved. Microsoft decided that the decree was a little too confining, and got clever with its coders. No other reasons make sense.
Where the browser is located, under
difference. That it is more consistently available to be called upon is, perhaps, a relief now to developers, that they won't have to stick the latest copy of IE on the CD or link to it on their website. THAT much I'll concede.
Linux hasn't got that level of consistency going for it yet, and no pretty outer wrapper the way MacOS does (and i'm NOT talking about desktops, people!) I'll concede also that Windows makes life simpler by providing fewer options.
What gets Microsoft in trouble isn't bundling this software with the operating system.
That is exactly what got them in trouble!
This software IS the operating system now.
Only by choice did MS do that, not out of necessity (except for legal necessity.) The availability of a consistent IE version on a given target installation platform is still random, so many developers choose to require IE 6.
What gets them in trouble is that Microsoft can and does use their dominance to push competition out of the market, killing off Netscape
And how exactly did they do that? By bundling the browser with the operating system. That's what got them in trouble. It was the result of clever legal scheming, not any particular coding need.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
Big surprise Europe is trying to milk money out of a company that is doing good because it is falling short on cash.
Insigtful my ass.
..."literally zero dollars in income tax"? Literally? Are you freaking kidding me? Did you even bother to read their annual report, specifically Form 10-K Note 13? I didn't think so. Try 4.7 BILLION dollars this year, 3.6 Billion last year, and 3.8 Billion before that. A far cry from "literally zero dollars" now, isn't it? Their effective tax rate this year was 32.1%. Do YOU pay 32.1% of your income JUST in income taxes? If you do, then your pulling down something close to a 6 figure salary (and might need a new accountant). My effective tax rate this year was a little over 7%. Large corporations like Microsoft should be so fortunate. On top of that, shareholders end up paying taxes on *their* earnings as well.
Look, I run Linux exclusively and am by no means a Microsoft fanboy. Still, I hate it when people ASSume that large coporations don't pay income taxes.
Enough with this "rich people don't pay taxes" crap.
Y'know, some OSS group should donate a billion dollars of software (estimated retail value) to the EU, or the UN, or something. Just to prove a point. I know people who really admire Bill Gates for his 'generous donations'....
...does anybody else find name "Karl Cocknozzle" at least a little humorous?
My point still fucking stands, MS is not a big contribution to the U.S. economy, and neither is any big corporation hording so much cash. Going gentle on MS was not a consideration for the U.S. economy, it was a goddam gift to BillG for his political contributions and support. Our rich, upper-class leaders want the richest people in the country on their side.
MS got what it wanted from the Bush administration, guess which party they're going to contribute to in the upcoming election?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
(Run a search for MCI32.OCX)
As I see it, even if M$ were forced to remove WMP from the install CD, it would be listed as a 'Critical update' when you went to Windows Update. I recently did a clean install of Windows and WMP 9.1 was included as a critical update. Anyone common user would automatically install it.
How does that really help the situation?
I've removed IE from windows XP. I've removed more than that two.
An OCX is a programming component, like an EJB or a DLL. It is not an application, but applications can be built using it.
Similarly, if MS needs the O/S to be able to play WM video and audio, include some OCX or DLL including only that functionality (say, MSWMAVW.DLL), document the interface, and include an application (removable) that uses it.
Now, I build VanPlayer, a new player that plays all known audio and video formats, including the brand new OVA (Ogg/Van Audio, a new, more efficient Open Algorithm codec). I have the option of playing WMA files using MSWMAVW.dll, or I could use my own custom dll that plays WMA more efficiently. My choice. You, as the customer, have the choice of installing VanPlayer and removing Media Player, Leaving Media Player installed, or having both installed (with different default formats split between the players, e.g. MP10.5 plays WMA, and VanPlayer 1.0 played OVA.)
BTW, MCI32.OCX is not what you think it is.
We are the Music Makers, and We are the Dreamers of Dreams...
I don't know about in the U.S. but here in the E.U. (Ireland) the Authorities view it as entirely their business to restrict business practices that are not beneficial to consumers and suppliers in the long run.
I for one am delighted that there is someone (Brussels) who makes SOME attempt to stop the "big bad corporations" getting out of hand. It's not like they don't strive to encourage business too. Just that it's with an aim of "good" business and not "bad" business.
Hence the whole Ryanair saga. Despite the cheap prices, it's moving into the realm of "bad" business.
It's no good letting someone get the violet, green, yellow and red streets plus the railway stations. They'll bankrupt you in no time.
I hope I'm making sense, after midnight it's hard!
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
that settlement was less than a wrist slap. it was a wrist massage and a blow job.
i don't think un-bundling does crap, unless they make windows cost less. Make them sell media player and internet explorer seperately, for like $25 each,
and take $50 off the price of windows retail.
if you don't make them cut the cost, people are having to pay for it anyway.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111541,00.html
It looks like you didn't.
Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm sick an tired of the courts forcing Microsoft to add even more crap that I'm not interested in with Windows. Java has a place on the server, I don't know what that is for, I'd rather server scripts be written in scripting languages. I guess Java fits there. I don't frigging want it on my desktop. In fact, I can't imagine what good it is. I don't like non-native apps anyway. Qt and QTK+ programs are the closest thing I've seen to cross platform that functions well and looks decent.
I don't want a quicktime player on my machine by default. I do install it myself on my desktops though. It's just that I don't want to reinstall windows 6 months from now when Qt 7 (or whatever version is out) and then reinstall Quicktime. If MPEG-4 support is important (and to me it is), I'll use the envivio MPEG-4 plugin to Windows Media which support MPEG-4 Systems, not just Video and Audio like Quicktime. I also can't frigging stand the "Upgrade to Pro" message when starting Quicktime. Included the full version or don't. There is no half way.
RealPlayer!!! This is an example of a truly shitty program written by an obscenely crappy organization. I have been working with Real in the past on several occassions and I would personally put my life savings into Microsoft stock if it would burry them. I hate Real since they don't care about stability, they simply wrap an h.264 derived codec in a DRM layer and ship it out.
I used to pay for Real Player Gold. In fact, I paid my $29. Then 4 weeks later they released a new version, and asked me for $19 more to upgrade. 6 months later, they upgraded again and made me pay another $19. That was the last time I paid. The next version release, then I deleted the old version from my machine and started offering free consultation to companies intersted in transistioning to Windows Media or Quicktime. I am happy to say that I personally have helped 5 high volume providers dump Real!!!!!
I work for a company which competes with Microsoft. People download and install our program even though Microsoft bundles their own. We've built a market by providing a better solution. It can be done. In the past 5 years, we've grown from 20 to 200 people and are profitable and we compete with Microsoft head on even though they consider us "small fish" or "a nice little company" that quoted from an interview with Steve Balmer. We take their market share and we do well. We don't need to be on a Windows disc. We're just that good. If Real and Apple can't do the same, then they should just cancel those product lines.
you fool... you clearly have no understanding of the law. monopoly does not mean 100% marketshare.
Who cares about MS using internal APIs or not?
.dll and call them if I so choose. I can write my own Spy utility and watch how messages are passed between components, and create an emulator of any app on the market if I choose. Maybe this is because I am a competant developer with some reverse engineering skills and enough free time to play with and/or write engineering utilities.
I can dump out all the methods in any Windows
If I am a non-MS (third party) developer and I want access to some part of the OS that I don't have access to, I can write the appropriate hooks at the appropriate level just using the documentation provided free of charge on http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/ (although their search is horrible unless you have the Google toolbar). If I were writing some Linux app, and waded through the source, I could do the very same. Big deal.
Sure, MS has people inside that talk to other insiders, but that's hardly "unfair". Microsoft is a large company and is vertically and horizontally integrated in several ways. Those integrations give it the ability to create product dependencies that tie solutions to the Microsoft platform.
Microsoft's platform is the most popular not because of its features, but because of the uniformity across the system. What does that mean? It means that Windows has one and only one Window manager. One and only one web browser. Applications depend on that browser and that window manager. Linux might have some cool new better web browser and some cool new funky window manager, but Linux is too late. Microsoft has 99% of the applications market, and a patent portfolio, and a network of hotmail and MSN users, etc, etc.
Regardless of if the Microsoft OS became the domimant OS through all the business tactics of licensing at different prices to people who only sold MS software vs people who sold competing software, it is now the dominant OS. If you want to "unseat" it, you have to keep up with the platform which is growing at a rate that 10,000 well paid engineers will make it grow at.
All of this recent malware recently put out has really caused Microsoft to adapt. Microsoft is like the Borg collective. It can lose a LOT. It will adapt, though. Those 5,000+ developers in the Windows org and 5,000+ developers in the Office org don't make over $100,000 per year to sit around and not produce code. They are well-paid developers who earn their living by working hard (many 50/60+ hour weeks according to my friends there), not by posting to slashdot. It would be nice if MS spent a few Billion on the customer running Windows 95 and Office 6.0, but realistically, it's not going to happen.
If Europe wants a crippled Windows, MS will make theie crippled Windows come with a big disclaimer: This version of Windows isn't as good as the one which includes the software you need to be competitive in this world. If MS really wanted to slap the EU, it would take the WMP and MCI out of the Windows so that all Music and Sound applications would fail on it, including all of MS's competitors like Apple and Real that use MCI (the Windows Media Control Interface) to play media. Then you wouldn't even be able to download/install WMP from the internet.
Given the choice between a Windows OS that was crippled and a Windows OS that did what the people want, I'd have to say that you'd need to pay me to run the crippled OS.
If you want to make a viable competitor to Windows, you need 1 thing: Software that runs on it that Joe 6 pack can buy in the local software store. Until you have just as many "titles" you aren't even in 2nd place. Just like in Japan, the XBox is a clear loser in 3rd place.