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."
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 hope the EU also forces Apple to bundle Real with MacOSX as well...
The EU has not deemed that Apple has monopoly; Microsoft does.
Are you saying that it's more 'fair' that the same rules should apply to a minor competitor as to a monopoly actor?
Because it's certainly not fair if you feel monopolies are bad.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Yeah... just like giving away versions of their products to schools is some sort of punishment!
That's like these class action lawsuits (the one against monitor manufacturers for selling 15.9 inch "17 inch" monitors comes to mind) where you get a coupon for some insanely small amount ($5) off of a new monitor! Jesus... that's not a penalty! Give me cash! Make Microsoft pay reparations! Where's the BEEF?
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
In all honesty, I don't think its the government's responsability to ensure stupid users have XYZ Media Player on their computers. Yes MS is huge, and yes they virtually have a monopoly on the PC market, but bundling Netscape/Real/etc with Microsoft's Operating Systems makes no logical sense.
The aim at a suit like this should be to punish MS for strong-arming manufacturers like Dell, Gateway, etc into using MS software over the competition. Its the manufacturers responsability to bundle third party software like those above (yeah, Netscape is dead, yada yada), not Microsoft's.
"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.
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.
I get the distinct impression the EU is out to make an example of them and fine them ridiculously.
Yes, you are probably right. The EU probably wants to make some kind of a political statement to corporate America, and show that *they* won't be bribed.
But, Microsoft probably deserves to be smacked anyway, they got away with it once, and I'd be rather disappointed to see them get away with it again.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Personally, what I would really like to see this time around is them forcing MS to open up their file formats. If there is one thing I see them using to maintain their monopoly in Office software is the fact the competitors need to reverse engineer the file formats to even begin to compete. The reverse engineering is not perfect, therefore there are problems. If they totally documented .doc (and the new XML format), and are not allowed to "patent" (or copyright or whatever) it, that would open up the Office software industry quite a bit and allow everyone to compete on functionality and features, rather than who has the keys to make files flow seemlessly between users. This clearly goes to the heart of the effects of having a monopoly.
The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
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.
/. users, Microsoft has in fact played their cards right in a lot of ways. It is not random chance that they're one of the largest, most powerful companies on the planet. On the contrary, it's very deliberate. I'd suggest doing some reading on the things they've done in the past. There's a lot of history in that company and many, many examples of behavior that a) was successful, and b) probably could have been curbed by a slightly less wimpy legal system.
Actually, they do need laws to help, because they have amassed a disproportionately large amount of power and without laws they will literally be able to do whatever they choose. This isn't a question of being a Microsoft fan or not, this is a question of a single company having enormous power and reach, and without laws that company can do (and has already done, even with laws, because they are always able to manipulate the circumstances in their favor) things that are unfair to other companies.
I'm no Microsoft fan either, but I stand in complete awe of their ability to succeed, regardless of the circumstances. Despite doing many things "wrong" according to
This is the crux of it... currently the OEM restrictions are pure evil. The big one is the dual-boot clause: no non-Microsoft OS to dual boot with a Microsoft OS. So if you want to offer a version of Windows (and they all do), you can't offer Linux or *BSD (or previously, Be) on the same box.
This was the issue that the US govt wimped out on badly, and I'm hoping the EU will stand firm.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Well, the inclusion of competitors products was Microsoft's idea for settlement. The government should be trying to force Microsoft to competitors in the application space the same access to OS-level APIs as their own developers receive. I think the licensing is important too, but until there is a level playing field to develop products to the same platform (I believe having access to a restriced API means it's not the same platform) it won't change much to let OEMs install competing products. There still won't be room to compete on technical merit, letting the customers decide.
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.
Because I have software that runs under Windows. Some of it is several years old and ran under 3.1 or win 95, but I still need an OS to run this legacy stuff on.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This is utterly ridiculous. Microsoft got where they were because of the law. If they can ignore the law now, why shouldn't I? Without law, let's see... someone could go raid their campuses, steal their hardware, take their softwareware, kill their employees, and destroy them with a physical assault. But no: there is law, and law enforcement, to prohibit this, and allow Microsoft and other companies to flourish.
There is other law, and law enforcement, to prevent Microsoft (and other companies) from doing bad things, too. That's we're seeing right now, and for the most part, it's unfortunately weak.
Some laws are stupid, and need changed (DMCA, USA PATRIOT, etc), but for the most part, society is the scale, and law is the balance. Without law, there would be no society, and without good law, and enforcement of the law, the balance will tip.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Why aren't they suing BMW for including radios in their automobiles?
Probably because BMW don't have a virtual monopoly on the car market.
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
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.
I don't really think it matters which products they include. It's a stupid settlement because it doesn't address the problem: Microsoft applications have access to a different platform than similar applications by published by competitors. As long as that is true, than Microsoft is guilty of abusing their monopoly position.
Which kind of bothers me.
The last thing I would like to see is a prolonged political/economical stand-off between the EU and USA.
The present silliness with the freedom fries madness over there and general uninformed anti-American crap over here is already enough.
The owls are not what they seem
Bundling Windows Media Player with Windows XP (and having it installed as the default media app.) removes any need the typical consumer might have to investigate other options. This is why the EU is protesting M$'s solution. Unless Real is installed along with WMP, the average consumer won't use Real or WinAmp, thereby stiffling competition.
BMW doesn't have a monopoly, that's where bundling becomes a bad thing because it extends a monopoly. For your example to make sense, it would need to be something along the lines of:
You own MobileCoffeeCo that makes in-car coffee makers. You sell your coffee makers in the after market. All of a sudden, BMW, which owns 95% of the world auto market (Bentley owns the other 5% and few people can afford one) decides they're including their own in car coffee maker in their cars. You're out of business. Eh, no harm done, people still have their coffee makers right? Yeah, you're out of business through a completely anti-competitive move, but it's not unfair according to your argument.
Now can you see where the *combination* of having a monopoly and employing bundling strategies is anti-competitive? It's leveraging that monopoly power that's illegal. Back in the real world, if BMW had a 5% market share and bundled coffee makers, you could still compete. However, if the other auto makers *colluded* with BMW to put you out of business by bundling, again it would be anti-competitive.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
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
I don't want it to be just like linux, that is what linux is for. What I want, is more freedom to customize and configure Windows. I want Windows to be an OS that is flexible enough to allow me to choose whatever browser, email client, media player I want, not what Bill thinks I need.
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.
Linux and Windows aren't as different as you think they are. 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.
Need to play a mp3, wav, mpeg, or other multi media file? You could include Quicktime and pay Apple a distributor fee, or you can use Windows Media player libraries which got installed when Windows was installed.
Many of the building blocks of these applications are there for developers to take advantage of. The DLLs get large because Microsoft dictates that they must remain backwards compatible, so that an application coded for dllhell.dll version 1 will still work for dllhell.dll version 6 without recompiling. This is one thing Windows does have that Linux doesn't. Since most of Linux is open source and Windows and applications aren't though, both methods are acceptable for the platform.
What gets Microsoft in trouble isn't bundling this software with the operating system. This software IS the operating system now. 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 attempting to push Apple, Real, and others out of the market. They could maybe get away with leaving the dlls in there, but leaving the UI components of Media Player out.
Glad that the EU sees that including a supplemental CD with Windows isn't enough. If it isn't pre-installed, it can't compete with Media Player. If it is pre installed, it still can't compete with Media Player because Media Player will be the player handling the file extensions. The last thing MS wants to do is add a "Select your preferred player application" to the Windows First Boot, but that's the only solution I can come up with right now.
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
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
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.
because Bill wants every desktop to be the same
I would suspect that many users(especially office people, like secretaries, temps, etc.) want the same thing. It can be a real pain if every machine were configured differently. Imagine if you had to spend time relearning where everything is every time you change jobs or even departments within your company. I thought(though I'm probably wrong) that Microsoft made their software for businesses originally, not the home user, and thus wanted to create a similar configuration on all machines. Call me naive or whatever(just don't call me late for dinner), but I think that concept is a good thing under those circumstances.
What?
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.
/etc/alternatives.
Plus, define a standard for the way that things are launched. If you want them to stay in library functions, publish the specs. Do you know how easy the Mozilla people could write a DLL for their HTML renderer? And have you seen Firefox lately? Dear God, it's so much faster than IE in rendering.
It's called an API. Microsoft is not publishing the API for the HTML DLL, and that's just crap. I can, of course, install Firefox on Windows, but Windows will still use the IE renderer anytime the DLL is called.
First we had IE.
Next we have Media Player.
Then Messenger.
Then Zipped folders. (Notice no one complained about that?)
C'mon! Who doesn't see a pattern here? MS just needs to open the damned API, and everyone would be happy.
The problem is that Microsoft is extending the idea of "operating system" to equate to "desktop". Everyone who uses Linux knows this is a pile of crap. Microsoft does not control a desktop environment. They control an operating system, and their control over the operating system has allowed them to slowly start to gain control over the desktop environment. And again, that's crap.
It already is. You can use whatever software you want. What you want is the ability to not install software you don't think you use. The problem is, you use it all the time. The same parts of the OS used to play video in Windows Media Player is used to play it in the beginning of games (those which haven't licensed Bink or used their own MPEG decoder anyway, and especially those which have used DirectMedia.) The HTML compositing and rendering system used in Internet Explorer is used to display the Help system in anything using Microsoft help, or CHM (compressed, archived HTML help) and configuration screens in many Unreal-engine games, among many others. Even mail is handled through services which have been present on Windows NT for some time.
The interfaces you know as Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, and Windows Media Player are a relatively small piece of the puzzle.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This software IS the operating system now.
When it comes time to arguing legal cases and to leverage the desktop, sure.
IIRC, there'n nothing technically preventing MS from using Windows XP Embedded as a baseline for constructing a basic PC system. Then, uh, essential OS features, such as an HTML renderer and audio file decoders, could be added in a modular way (just as they are with Linux). Such a solution would probably result in more robust and maintainable code since gratuitous complicated ties between the OS proper and the applications would not be needed to support the illusion needed for courtrooms and for marketing new "OS" features.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
That's the problem, and that's why Windows is so inflexible. (Too) many things are built right into the OS.
This is the opposite of GNU/Linux systems, which are based on a philosophy of freedom of choice. I'd hazard that the Windows philosophy, too, is the exact opposite : limitation of the user's choice (which especially rankles when the stuff that's chosen for you is so bad).
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$FT has managed to become both autocracy and parasite.
As I see it, even if M$ 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?