Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and EU Talks End
Paul Longford writes "Microsoft talks with the EC have collapsed. The competition commisioner Mario Monti just made this statement in which he said: 'I'd just like to inform you that a settlement on the Microsoft case has not been possible. I therefore intend to propose to my colleagues in the Commission next Wednesday to adopt a decision, which has already received the unanimous backing of Member States.' This is bad news for Microsoft - it looking at a considerable fine and possibly being forced to open up Windows. It looks like it will be a harsh decision too. Monti says: 'In the end, I had to decide what was best for competition and consumers in Europe. I believe they will be better served with a decision that creates a strong precedent.'"
I'm glad to see that at least Europe still has some functioning antitrust laws, unlike the US where antitrust laws were effectively gutted by the judiciary.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
OK so they get fined and told how to distribute windows.
Who thinks this will REALLY change anything? That MS will go a little bit more restricted in how media stuff is installed from a start, but they'll keep on doing the same old crap in every other part of their dealings with the EU
How harsh? A fine and opening MS Windows to Real, Quicktime and the like?
This is next to nothing. Nothing short of breaking up MS and demanding published, open APIs, protocols and file formats will do.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
And now begins the lengthy foot-dragging and political manipulations to elect someone(s) who will direct the competition commission to decide MS has suffered enough and we should all go back to our Windows desktops.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
...how they will enforce this. What reason has Microsoft got to give in and pay up? It's not like the EU can ban sales of Windows, too many computer purchasers would be terrified of the alternatives. Even if Windows was banned in Europe, the people wouldn't buy computers with Linux on, they would buy Macs.
Sad but true.
A latent existence
that's why they want the strong precident so they go after MS again and again until they play fair (or they go bankrupt wwhich lets face it is more likley than them playing fair)
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
So does this mean that Windows will eventually become a pure OS, with no usable applications? I mean, there are commercial "competitors" in every arena.
No Web Browser (Netscape)
No Media Player (Real)
No Word/Wordpad (Wordperfect)
No Imaging (ACDSee)
No Defrag (Notron Works)
No Zip support (WinZip)
No Solitaire (...)
Seems pretty useless to Joe Average, who just wants to turn on his new PC and play his MP3s and check his email.
The biggest penalty is not the fine but the "requirements", such as shipping non MS media players and opening up some proprietry standards to competitors.
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
I have to say that much as I am anti-Microsoft and think they've got a monopoly that needs dealing with, I am rather worried about what this will mean.
Well, slightly worried, anyway.
If Windows is deemed anticompetitive in the media-stakes, well all that can really be done is to force MS to allow WIndows to come with alternatives installed. That's not really gonna affect them. It sure ain't gonna affect me, as should I ever buy another Windows PC then the first thing I'll do (like with my current one) is to repartition and reinstall to my tastes. So if Real & Quicktime are included, they won't be for long.
And there's no easy way they can force MS to include them on an installation disc, at least not wtihout clearing the licensing with Apple and Real.
And in all honesty, I can't see MS being forced to break up and open up any time soon. It just isn't going to happen.
TiggsTiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/18/news/international /microsoft_eu.reut/index.htm
"The company is certain to appeal against a Commission decision in the European courts. Litigation could take several years."
At which time any verdict will be pretty much irrelevant.
Wonder how this affects Longhorn planning. Anyone with insight on this?
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
The very last thing that Microsoft wants to do is to force a very large number of people and business to use alternative software.
Just to keep history straight: our judicial system (just about) worked, with the exception of the conservative appeals judges giving Judge Jackson a special hate-filled working over after he found against Microsoft.
The problem was the Bush Justice Department. Ashcroft simply refused to do anything, and let the decision be unenforced, thus snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
The judicial system worked, after all those long years. Bush, who believes any regulation of business is socialistic if not outright communistic, according to an old Harvard business professor of his, finds the anti-monopoly laws distasteful in the extreme, and his cohorts are vetted to agree with such beliefs. When Bush was elected, the Microsoft case was effectively lost.
Given the anti-american semtiment in europe
It's anti-Bush sentiment. Of course Bush supporters don't see any difference, but there is one.
"Who thinks this will REALLY change anything?"
It will change the consumers' perception of what Microsoft actually is: An anti-competitive monopolist with questionable business practices.
> imagine the economic impact
Errr.. I am.. lots of news jobs for Linux-savvy people like me, with MSc's in computer science but a lame job.
I for one welcome... a... uh.... new job?
I see two sides of it here in my office. I use Linux, as well as a few other staffers here. Other people use Windows. Each uses Linux or Windows by choice.
.DOC files. .DOC's aren't proprietary as far as they are concerned. They don't care about the licensing issues behind mp3's and other file formats. They don't care because they just don't know.
Why do they use Windows? Because it's default, it's the defacto, it's the "standard" that has been created. They send and receive Word
So I hear reports that Microsoft is patenting it's XML formats (or something along those lines) for the next version of Word. When OpenOffice can't read these files for legal reasons, is that going to be Microsoft's fault, or OpenOffice's fault? We know what the answer is, but these guys don't care. They aren't lawyers, and they just want to do their job without worrying about what license their computer is operating under.
Microsoft abused it's power. It's that simple. The fact that competition is starting to come out is a good thing, but you don't have to be the only one to violate anti-trust laws (or else Microsoft would never have gone to trial in the first place, as other OS's have always existed). However, I don't know the EU anti-trust laws at all, so I can only imagine they broke them there as well.
The point is, by forcing this on Microsoft, it will ensure competition. I don't want to see the end of Microsoft, but rather, I want to see the beginning of a standards based environment where competitors compete on the quality of their product.
Hopefully this decision will allow such an environment to prosper and grow.
Jason Lotito
Bush wasn't elected. He was appointed by the judicial system. If Bush's presidency marked the end of the Microsoft case, the judicial system did NOT work.
Is it just me or does this seem alot less of the "EU using anti-trust laws", and more of "EU removing USA trust from domiance in EU market." Why do have the feeling if MS was based in UK that suit wouldn't have been filed.
The EU commission does enforce anti-trust laws on European companies on a regular basis. And yes, they would love Europe to have a stronger position in the global software market.
However, in this case, it's hard to see a strong domestic interest. Who benefits: Apple, Real? They aren't well-known European companies.
Punishing Microsoft for monopolistic behavior is hardly ... uhm ... post-Christian marxist-fascist-existentialist nihilist behaviour.
It's straight-forward execution of the state's obligation to enforce rules of fair play as defined by consensus and trial-and-error through the ages. One of those is to prevent manipulation of markets by parties powerful enough to take a monopoly position.
Monopolists distort the markets and supress free competition so as to extract maximum resources from consumers. This is bad for innovation, for economic performance and for society as a whole. There is only one organ that we grant the right to raise taxes, and that is the State itself.
The EU are doing their job. The US have failed to do this perhaps because the State and Business are too close together.
BTW, wtf does p-C m-f-e-n actually mean? I mean, wtfffff??
Ceci n'est pas une signature
You are thinking Microsoft sells windows directly to the public, and it doesn't. The missing component in this vision are the OEMs. The real outcome here is not that MS will be forced to bundle these other apps with Windows, but that they will no longer be able to prevent (European) OEMs from doing so.
So think OEMs, these are the companies that actually distribute Windows, not Microsoft.
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
Lets take the analogy a bit further..
.. heck even your music system and the repair shops use Ford as the defacto standard. Of course, Ford has patents and strong arm tactics to maintain its position in the market.
Ford (Microsoft) has 90% of the market. Gas stations have pumps (hardware/drivers) that only work on Fords and virtually all dealers (dell, gateway, etc..) will only sell you a Ford. Parking spots, roadways
You could buy a Toyota (Red Hat). Unfortunately when you do, you realize that you end up having to find different pumps to get gas (which are few and far between), cannot buy a Toyota fully assembled (computer w/Red Hat installed) and end up having to buy a Ford (Wintel machine) and installing Toyota parts (Red Hat & software). Of course, even after you have your Toyota and you realize it is better (more fuel efficient, more reliable, more features, etc..), you find that Ford's dominance adversely affects the full potential of your Toyota. You no longer can use the local pumps down the street, you end up having to do maintenance by yourself (as very few if any of the shops will service your Toyota), and worse of all, your favorite parking spots, streets and music (software) is not supported full on the Toyota so you end up either having to find completely new music, new places to drive and new parking spots or end up simply being constrained on where you can go.
The bottom line is this -- cars don't work this way. I had a Honda and bought a Toyota. My CDs still worked in in, I could still get the same gas, drive the same roads, park in the same parking spots. The basic fundamental "user interface" is the same -- perhaps laid out slightly different. I can get it serviced at a wide variety of places, get the oil changed at the neighborhood gas station. No problems.
Unfortunately, when talking about computer system choice, this is obviously not as "drop in and go" as you make it out to be. The fact that Microsoft monopolized the market, coerced OEMs into supporting only MS products (bundling deals and the like), effectively dumps their product to get people hooked and does not follow industry standards to maintain a certain level of lock-in adversely affects everyone.
The antitrust legislations have also come down hard on the EU companies. About the only one in 2004 from the US so far is Microsoft.
Basically, they're showing that they have teeth to ALL who trade in the EU, both native and foreign.
If MS had been based in the EU, they'd have been defanged harshly at the initial hearing (unlike in the US where they got given a slap on the wrist, told to be good boys, and let loose to cause havoc again).
The reason Linux has been getting used in Governments is to help stop frequent virus infections, use an OS which they can tailor themselves, and isn't locked in to one vendor saying what they can and cannot do with it, and charging extortionate prices for that.
Even if they used Windows to run Government offices, they'd still need local contractors to run the machines..
If the offices believe they save money, then it's a fair bet in the long run that they will.
And it certainly stops the 'single point of failure' that a single vendor solution presents.
I'm not an MS fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm curious as to what people here think is "fair" in a realistic sense.
Open Source is nice, for example, but does that mean proprietary software is "unfair?"
So we can come to the car analogy again, for example, if someone starts putting proprietary air filters or even a proprietary stereo (where you can't figure out the connections, for example - you'd have to rip out all the old speakers and everything and completely replace it to put a new one in). Those things would really suck, and make me not want to buy that car, but would it really be "unfair?" Should the government step in and say that car manufacturer can no longer install stock stereo systems?
I realize we can go around in circles about what consumers are "forced" to buy when they buy a new computer, but the fact is that now, more than there has been in the past 20 years, there is a choice. So we can rag on all the losers that don't know a bit from a byte or what an OS even is, but if they are the majority and they want their "free" media player/browser/whatever installed when they buy the computer, is it "fair" to tell them they can't have that? Isn't this just making things difficult for the vast majority of the people involved?
I suppose we can look at future rewards from current hardships, but we have to ask if it's really necessary.
For the record, I don't buy MS software, I won't even buy an X-Box even though I love games, I just can't bear the thought of giving my money to MS. However, I'm not such an idiot that I don't understand why other people do it, and they should be free to do it if they want. People should start taking personal responsibility, if they put up with that crap, the manufacturers will abuse them - the same as we are being abused by the RIAA and MPAA and keep going back for more. If enough people abandon MS, they will get the picture.
A subscription to Mandrake, for example, is a good start... so is not buying cheapbytes discs, but buying them from the actual distributers. Macinstosh, for many, is also a fine solution, although I have no doubt that given the market share they'd be just as bad, if not worse, than MS.
Let's assume there's 500,000 slashdot subscribers. Let's assume 80% are open source advocates who use Linux. Let's assume they all did the $60/year Mandrake subscription. That's 400,000 * 60 = $24,000,000 that goes to Mandrake Linux. Let's say Mandrake is supporting a number of OpenSource projects. All those projects improve (not necessarily) and create more demand. After two years, 800,000 people subscribe. That's how it's supposed to happen, not by crying to the government to impose restrictions on your competition so that everything is "fair" - that's like a Harrison Bergeron world.
I'm really beginning to hate the word "fair", because I don't think most people actually understand what it means.
BTW, cheers to the people in the EU who fought this fight and made it happen. I don't know about any of your constitutions as much as I'd certainly like to, but the U.S. constition has no provision that life will be "fair".
This is not to say I don't agree with laws banning some monopoly tactics (like dumping and tying), just that I think it's not as clear cut as a lot of people think (is MS dumping their product by giving it for free with the OS when other companies don't charge for their media players or browsers?) Even the tying claims are difficult because it does give better performance to integrate some things with the OS, even if we all disagree that the performance gains outweight the problems that can cause.
I guess my biggest problem with all this is that it is not going to make MS go away, or even lose marketshare. As such, it's not going to cause third party developers to support linux or open standards (which is what we really want, isn't it?). We can't rely on the government to do that.
MS cannot "beat" OpenSource software, but it can keep us b
Stupid sexy Flanders.
How many consumers are even aware of this case? How many care?
Harm to the consumer...Well, let's see, in the last month or so about 20 new viruses or worms have been released focusing on vulnerabilities in Windows, in addition several known security problems exist in IE which propogate the problem of viruses, and as Windows/IE is packaged together and has more than 90% of the market share, the viruses are much more easily spread and cost companies billions of dollars each time.
Yeah, no harm to the consumer there.
Jealous of what? People like you? An education system that apparently failed to teach you basic punctuation? Jealous that our economy is in wildly better shape than the U.S for the past four years? Jealous of the fact that you practice a form of Democracy which allows the guy who lost, to win? Jealous of a law system which allows draconian and downright wrong laws to be enacted without a whisper from the population, even though those laws fly directly in the face of the beloved Constitution people such as yourself like to tell us so much about? Jealous of the fact that you have a leader who violates and twists international law when it suits him, because the bad man did a bad thing and made him angry?
None of that, in fact, makes Europe jealous of you or the United States. It makes us pity you.
So we can come to the car analogy again, for example, if someone starts putting proprietary air filters or even a proprietary stereo (where you can't figure out the connections, for example - you'd have to rip out all the old speakers and everything and completely replace it to put a new one in). Those things would really suck, and make me not want to buy that car, but would it really be "unfair?" Should the government step in and say that car manufacturer can no longer install stock stereo systems?
If you couldn't get your car without the Stereo, the multiple cd changer. Sure, it's free, wink wink, nudge, nudge.
Do you remember that Netscape wanted and needed to change for their browser? And Bill Gates said in a public forum that MS still had OS revenue and they could "compete" in the "free" browser market while he didn't see how Netscape could.
After MS included the browser for free, loaded on the machine, and excluded any other browsers, Netscape was forced to enter the "Free" browser market and simply make money on server products. (They're not free, Netscape had to try to leverage it's server market products market-share to support the "free" browser.) I can't find quotes, as they're old but some of the statements by Gates are pretty damning.
It's been said many times before, but once you reach monopoly status, you can't use the same tactics to force people out of your markets. The power and ability to do so, the theory goes is too great and the results always ultimately hurt consumers.
So, no, I don't think this is unjustified. Sure, it's way late and probably will only serve to increase the rising tide against MS, rather than early on where it could have turned the tide. That's too bad, but we shouldn't give up on prosecuting the murderer simply because it was 20 years ago and he's in jail on bank fraud. (Not to mention, we don't know where things will go tomorrow and having a judgement in the bank will go a long ways to prevent abuse as much as possible as MS either reforms or dies.)
Anyway...
Cheers,
Greg
While US supplies did help (of course they did) they were not be all end all in the war. For example, most of the tanks that were shipped to USSR were old and crappier than the ones Russians used. Native Russian production of war-material far outstripped the amount of goods that was shipped to them by the Allied. When it comes to tanks, Russia received about 12.000 of them, most being old and/or phased out by the western powers. In comparison, production of T-34-tank alone (A tank that was far superior to anything that was shipped to USSR by USA) numbered in the tens of thousands!
In the end, the war was decided by Russian soldiers who fought the Germans.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
The trial is actually about what Microsoft did, not what they are doing. There are various cases of them outright lying about competitors products and coding their own product (great to control the OS) to break the competition's products. They did use unfair influence to tie their prices not to the number of units bought, but the the number of competitor's units bought.
Currently they've only written about trying to embrace and extend certain necessary protocols to kill Linux, they've had close dealing with SCO, etc.
While at any one time there may not be enough to say MS should be shut down for, the company has had a history of outright criminal actions.
This isn't an MS thing, this is an accountability thing. If you harm your competitors though criminal actions you NEED to be punished. Otherwise we're simply saying to everyone that if you want to succeed you need to break the law, and that you won't be punished for doing so. Not if you break really big laws at any rate. Rob a 7-11 and go to jail for life. Steal billions and we'll let you keep your ill-gotten gains.
I couldn't care less if MS made a complete reversal and was now sponsoring needy children in Africa, they need to be smacked around for their past transgresions that put them where they are today. The fact they haven't stopped just makes it worse.
Hi, thanks for the response. I realize there's nothing wrong with being a monopoly until you start abusing that position.
I'm still wondering what "fair" means as applied to Microsoft, as in "Microsoft is not playing fair". How are they not playing fair? Is bundling a media play with windows somehow unfair to the consumer?
I can see how you can say it's unfair to the competition, but again I ask if that's not ALWAYS the case? For example, most Hondas come with a rebranded Honda stereo. These days, you don't even have a choice - the car comes with a stereo. Find me one that doesn't. So is that "unfair" to JVC or Sony or other manufacturers? Seems to me the aftermarket stereo market is quite brisk.
And so the question is if you really think it is unfair, how do you make it fair?
If you require it to be a download, %99 of the people are going to download WMP. The only people who will download quicktime, for example, would have done it anyway.
If you require choice in installation (i.e. the Windows installation requires you to select none or more of WMP, QT, and Real) then what about OTHER mediaplayers? Do you have to be a big business in order to be included (mplayer, vlc, etc.)? Soon you will need several extra discs just to hold all the choices for browsers, word processers (hey! bundling word-pad is unfair!), mediaplayers, text editors... where does the line get drawn so that it's "fair" for all companies?
As far as the definition goes, I still see it being arguable that MS is not (in this case) being "unfair." If there was a contract about what consumers should get, and they weren't getting it, then they'd be unfair with respect to definition 7. Otherwise it's subjective (what's a fair profit for MS?).
In definition 8, MS is certainly consisten with the logic of increasing value (if only percieved value, which is valuable in its own right) of their products. I don't know that it's ethicly wrong to include a mediaplayer with an OS. If it is for one, it should be for all. I won't complain that mandrake includes mediaplayers. And that brings us to rules. These rules are too subjective... what makes MS a monopoly (I'm not arguing they're not)? What rules do they have to follow? Are those rules different from what everyone else has to follow? Is that, in itself, "fair?"
The reason I bring up the whole "fair" thing is because people throw that word around in a very selfish manner, which is totally against any meaning of "fair" there is. Most people here who whine that something isn't fair are complaining that they are not getting something they want, or some group they are associated with, or some company they support, are actually forced to play by the same rules everyone else plays by, and somehow that's not "fair".
It's like a very large number of people who believe rich people are not paying their "fair" share of income tax in the U.S. I don't want to get into a political argument, it's the idea of what people actually think is "fair". What is fair? Not a textbook definition, but what do you think would be fair and equitable for everyone?
Is there anything MS could do, while being a monopoly, that slashdotters would think is "fair?"
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Remember, Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player are not free products. They are given away freely by Microsoft provided that you run Windows by which MS assume that you have paid for the development of those products within the cost of purchasing your Windows OS or other MS products. After all, the developers of WMP and MS need to paid somehow... It just means that MS have to do a bit of work separating out the "application" from the "operating system", exactly the same as every other developer of Windows products has to do - in the EU, we call that "a level playing field".
It seems that the best solution, with the EU ruling in place, is for MS to cut the price of each Windows OS and drop the "extra" products from Windows onto a separate purchased CD, similar to what the "Plus Pack" was but maybe call it the "Desktop Pack". After all, why would anyone running Windows in a server environment necessarily need to install IE or WMP on that machine? On the other hand, Joe Sixpack can go buy a CDs with IE and WMP on if he wants them or have the freedom of choice to go buy other products of even use Open Source ones. (Yes, dear Windows users, it may shock you to learn that there are a very large number of Open Source apps for Windows also!)
Microsoft need to be made to realise that they cannot "have their cake and eat it". On one hand, they encourage developers to create applications for Windows and hand out developer tools but, on the other hand, they integrate IE and WMP so tightly into Windows that they make it difficult for developers to create integrated media and browser apps of their own.
Finally, I'm pretty certain that most of the Windows users on here probably make and play MP3s and DivX/MPEG movies. So how do those same people feel about DRM being brought in with WMP to ultimately stop them doing that in the future. How are those people going to feel in 2-3 years time when they're forced to go with WMA & WMV formats that have to be licensed from MS first?
Maybe the EU has been hard on MS but, let's face it, MS have been pretty damn hard on a lot of other companies over the years so I personally am not going to feel sorry for them.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
The EU antitrust until now mainly hit european companies. You are just using blind "patriotism" to support a US company, which by the way is mainly damaging other US companies. Incredible and very disturbing that your port got modded to 5/insightful.
There was an excellent article about this very point in the Wall St. Journal a few weeks ago, the monday columnist (Col 1 sec B) is pretty with it. Anyway he questioned whether our monopoly is giving us enough to justify it's existance comparing MS with AT&T and IBM which both generated tons of useful inventions (PCs, UNIX, lasers, etc) and basic research (several nobel prizes each) while MS gives us buggy software.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.