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. =====
Steve Balmer rushed over in a last-ditch attempt to try and come to a deal, but the commissioner apparently demanded even-tougher remedies if a negative precedent was not to be set...
The fine is expected to be between 67 million UK pounds, and 670 million UK pounds . Ouch. That's a fair old amount of latitude in the range, but even MS would presumably rather not pay a billion-dollar fine. I know their cash reserves are up in the 40 billion dollar range, but even so it has to hurt. I'd expect the commission to fine them again if they don't do as they're told, as well....
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
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
Sounds like the EU is going to show some spine and actually ENFORCE their antitrust laws. What a concept.
Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
Look like Microsoft will get the predicted 10% fine (of annual global sales) and removal of WMP from Windows. Bring on the competition...
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
I'm not what sort of settlement terms they were discussing, but for Microsoft to allow it to end with no real conclusion sounds like a bad move for them... however, they must have some kind of backup plan. I have no idea what it might be, because this isn't like the situation here in the US where they can keep things tied up in court forever.
Maybe fines and new versions of OS's is OK with them. Hm.
The EU did what the US courts did not have the balls to do. Hmmm, maybe China, India, Russia, Brasil and Indonesia may follow suit, hmmm.
MS contributes a lot of money to both US political parties.. Europe may need "liberating" soon..
I'm sure they have some website about how this is "preventing us from competing" and "stifling our innovation".
Even if they do get fined they will keep appealing, they've got the money to keep trying. They've got the money to "sweeten" a few EU MEPs. I'm fairly surprised the EU has done this given how they suck up to big business.
This could be more fun than the SCO fiasco....Bill, open the file marked JudgementDay.pif :-)
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
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!
Hopefully this will allow for a more competitive marketplace, where standards are adopted across the board. Open source could really do well because of this. Only a small portion of the world lives in the US, and with the EU nations taking a firm hand in putting down Microsoft.
For those not sure if this will help the US adoption of alternate products, it will. Businesses aren't just local, they import products, export products, and deal in Europe all the time. When Europeans move to other products, the US will make the move, or force Microsoft to adopt the standards the EU companies do.
This doesn't spell the end for Microsoft, but rather, it helps to open up a standards based computing environment. One where if your product is closed and completely proprietary, and threatens vendor lock-in, it won't be well appreciated, nor will it really be possible.
Jason Lotito
...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
Great. They are going to fine and impose these restrictions on Microsoft. How long before it actually happens? Will Microsoft just be able to tie this up with endless appeals and draw it out for another five years?
The way I see it is if this "fine" is more than the hassle of doing business with Europe, I'd pull out.
I'd also rip support of all European languages unless you paid mucho..
I'd also invalidate ALL licenes in Europe..
I'd also go cry to Bush to have them treat ol' MS like a picked on kid....
Course, if they do pull out of Europe, it means Linux would be on the rise, and fast.
tell me, what6's the solution if a monopoly takes on a government, by closing up shop? closes all offices in EU member countries, and no longer licenses it's products for use in those countries..
Hmm, people will import it, and microsoft won't have to support it... hmmm...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I doubt this will take place w/out a long drawn out fight. Microsoft will drag this out as long as possible.
This guy is way out there
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.
Whats next is complete control of the internet. How if you don't think thats what .NET is aimed at is blind.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
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?
1. A appeal request does not have to be granted.
2. A appeal does not guarantee that the restrictions being placed on them will not be imposed while the appeal is running.
Got Code?
Not really chilling at all. Microsoft has the best hand no matter what any company, law firm, or government agency says. It can simply say it will stop supporting and releasing patches for its products and that it will close it's doors and go out of business before it releases it source. This would leave a huge number of users and admins scrambling to find another platform. This would effectively grind the IT sector to a halt.
For all you zealots who says we can use Linux instead, that is great in theory but imagine the economic impact of replacing 80% of the computer desktops and a smaller but significant number of the servers.
What would happen if M$ revoked their Eurpean licenses and stopped supporting all European software? What if they took it a step further and required the uninstallation of all M$ software? Effectively, M$ would be saying, "Do it our way or our way. You have no other option." The open source migrations to date have not been tremendously successful. So would the Eurpean govermnents and industry be forced to use M$ products because there really isn't an alternative? They have such a tremendous investment in Windoze and PC hardware that they may be stuck...
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. (Of course if MS was based outside the US, the US would actually fine them in money and not software.) I feel the real reason Linux has been getting used in goverments has more to do with hiring of local contractors to keep it running than saving any money.
Remember it is about power, politics, and money. Not right or wrong.
... There seems to be a good amount of "they-are-all-out-to-get-us" sentiment in the parent's remark. Let's put some things in perspective here:
You see, courts in Europe have this strange idea that they are there to enforce the law and protect consumers. To make matters more absurd, they choose to stick to their principles even if large companies are involved. Strange, huh? ;)
And now the facts: the EU will, and has done so numerous times in the past, also punish European companies if they break antitrust laws. A complete list of antitrust cases from 1964 is here. And to give a nice example: in the cases so far in 2004, all of the listed companies are European.
That goes to show you.
Support a Europe-related section on Slashdot!
If the Bush administration had been tougher on Microsoft, maybe they would have solved these problems before Europe stomped on them.
When Microsoft is forced to behave everywhere _except_ the United States, then they will end up having to behave in the USA as well.
Getting an easy sentence from the US Anti-Trust conviction may not have been as favorable as it looked originally.
The EU commision is composed by people suggested by the national governments, and approved as a whole by the EU parliament. Most of the national governments are elected by the national parliaments, which is mostly composed by people elected on party lists in a propertional system, rather than directly by the voters.
It is an extremely indirect form for democracy, at best, and it is easy to influence by lobbyism and somewhat prone to corruptions. And it is damn slow. However, it is much harder to influence by manipulating the elections. There is no "single point of failure" like with the US president.
The linked Techworld article says something insightfull, but yet overlooked by posters:
To waive the ruling, Monti asked Microsoft to commit not to distort competition by bundling peripheral software programs to Windows in the future. Microsoft, it would appear, declined.
It seems that real problem was not about including WMP in Windows, but Microsoft refusing to stop doing similar things in the future.
When in doubt, go to the library. - Ron Weasley in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
"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.
It is nice to see laws being applied as if they were real laws. Here in the US being found guilty of being a monopoly seems to be an academic exercise. That still scared Microsoft enough to put their own man on the Bar Association's Antitrust group that decides how Antitrust lawsuits should be handled.
I wonder if it's just easier for the EU to do this type of thing to an outsider to Europe as opposed to an already entrenched monopoly that started in Europe. Is this just protectionism, or will the EU actually stand up to all Monopolies, foreign and domestic?
You may not be kidding about the price of a G5, but you're certainly mistaken.
A dual 2GHz G5 costs around $4,400 in the UK and while this is certainly much higher than the $3,000 paid in the US it's nowhere near what you claim.
As for the price of generic x86s, all that you can hope to get for $300 is a barebones PC without useful 'extras' like a hard drive, RAM etc. You'll pick up something useable for $500, but you'll still need a monitor on top of that.
You are an idiot. Did I say Linux was hard? No. I said people wouldn't use it. I think Linux is fantastic. I use it everyday at home. That doesn't change the fact the normal, everyday people WILL NOT USE IT! They are wrong, but they are still scared of it.
A latent existence
What are you talking about? The EU can mandate what goes on in their territory. IF YOU WANT TO DO BUSINESS IN THE EU, you can't bundle this. IF YOU WANT TO DO BUSINESS IN THE EU, don't merge with another large competitor. What's so confusing about that?
Windows has included at least some form of media player since 3.11 at least, and I suspect long before that. So do all Linux distributions, and so did BeOS. A media player of some sort is a part of a modern OS distibution.
Who are we to say what they can and can't add to their OS? If I released a third party calculator application, could I demand they remove calc.exe from Windows? How about telnet and ftp? Both of these have commercially available equivalents. So do disk utitilies, that are pretty much equivalent to disk defragmenter. Should Windows come with no applications at all? Can they even justify allowing them to bundle windows explorer (Not IE - I mean the file system browser)? It would be easy enough to write an alternative.
If I release an application for a platform that already contains the equivalent, I have no justification to complain that they're not playing fair. I can either make it better than the one that comes with the OS, try to sell it to the OS vendor, or try making my money some other way.
I'm generally in favour of Open Source software, but my attitude is that if Microsoft make an OS, they should be free to sell what they want with it, regardless of whether they have 5% or 90% of the market.
I know this attitude screwed Netscape over, but consider that the reverse side could be seen as SCOs; "the others have become more advanced, rendering our technology obselete, but we should be able to sit on our butts and get licensing fees"
I do not really feel that governments should interfere in the market, except that in recognition of the fact that they are the largest buyers, they should mandate as much open standards for all software that they purchase and use. Banning use of proprietary standards in all government dealings would be a much greater incentive to open source software and competition than all the market regulation and fines could ever achieve.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I'm expecting Microsoft to next try using their US politicians to cause problems for the EU over this.
Your points are valid, but I think the issue is escaping you. Yes MS beat the competition fair and square, on their merits, with superior products.
The issue is how they have have 'abused' the position of a monopoly having suceeded.
There is a perenial general problem of how to deal with monopolies. In the limit monopolies defeat free market capitalism as surely as socialism.
Ideally power should be asymptotic, ie very easy to get to 50% market dominance, harder to get to 60/70% and damn near impossible to go above 80/90% market dominance.
Unfortunately unchecked free markets have the opposite (positive) feedback effect. Having achieved 50% market dominance it becomes EASIER to go the next mile. That's why government intervention is a necessary evil.
Yeah! I was totally unaware of Microsoft's anti-competitive monopolistic behavior until this ruling. All my friends were shocked as well.
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
Let's hope it will have a little more impact on Microsoft's business practices than the last judgment
"There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
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.
Remember when Microsoft first bundled a TCP/IP stack with Windows (I think it was Windows 95)? TCP/IP vendors complained bitterly, and suggested that Microsoft should be forced to sell Windows without TCP/IP. I wonder if that issue will be revisited. If Microsoft's right to control its own property is compromised, I don't see where the line can be drawn.
Come to think of it, there was a time when third parties sold memory managers for Windows . . .
How outrageous! The USA has of course never tried to influence how business is done outside it's borders.
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
But it's not striking against outside competition - there is no internal competition. In other words, name me a major european software house producing a consumer/desktop operating system. Apple, RedHat, IBM etc al are also all american.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
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?
DuBeers has a near monopoly in diamonds while Microsoft has a near monopoly in desktop computers.
I donno about you but I use my computer more than diamonds!
MS need to be given a disincentive to abuse their monopoly power again (IE, WMP, what's next?).
It's poorly phrased, but that's a very interesting question. In the fight for the desktop, Microsoft has two big guns, MS Windows and MS Office. These two products enable them to sell all sorts of server stuff to support them - things like Exchange Server and MS SQL Server and, to a lesser extent, other types of collaborative software. Open Source companies have correctly identified this situation, so you see a lot of development taking place in the OS/Desktop and office productivity realms. You also see a lot of activity in the backoffice support technologies.
This competition is not going to just go away. Microsoft's competitors have realized that competing on level ground with Microsoft is damn near impossible. Very few corporations are capable of it. In this climate open source technologies provide a way to compete that Microsoft cannot defend against effectively. In the past, Microsoft would simply buy out the competition or use their muscle to compete unfairly (embrace and extend). They can't do that any longer because part of the equation has been broken. Microsoft cannot buy it's competition without endangering it's own business model. Even if they were to buy an open source company, another one would spring up immediately with an identical product. Without that leverage, embrace and extend doesn't work because the number of competitors (who effectively can't be bought) is simply too great.
Faced with these pressures, Microsoft is doing all they can to increase customer lock-in so that customers are less likely to take advantage of open source alternatives. They are also doing all they can to undermine the open source movement without looking like an Ogre, or at least not like too much of one. One of the classic ways to increase customer lock-in is to bundle applications with the desktop that operate only on that desktop. Windows Media Player is an excellent example, as is MSN Messenger. They also offer cut rates on premium items like MS Money to computer retailers so that they will bundle the product. With all of these products bundled on the computer, customers are less likely to switch to alternatives because none of the applications they use on a regular basis will run. This means that they must re-learn all of their skills instead of just a couple new applications.
But now they are facing competition that is entrenched, nearly unassailable, and getting better every day. Microsoft's monopoly days are numbered and they know it. All they can do is try to forstall the inevitable for as long as possible, and they will do this by tightening customer lock-in more and more until there is a major sea-change in the market. Specifically, they will continue to bundle more applications. I think you can expect to see PhotoPaint (or whatever it's called) from the Office suite to soon be bundled with Windows. MS Money may be a good candidate. MS Word will certainly come in at some point, perhaps with reduced functionality. In they end, Microsoft will have to either bundle nearly everthing, as it's open source competitors do now, or start porting it's applications to alternative platforms in order to compete in it's competitors' space.
That, my friends, is capitalism in action. It doesn't necessarily mean death to Microsoft, but it does mean more diversity in the market, and that is a good thing.
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
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.
You are sadly getting caught up in a typical USsian anti-EU mentality.
- Its De Beers, not DuBeers. Get your names straight. It does not bode well for the rest of your arguments.
- De Beers is founded and largely still operates from South Africa, not the EU.
- The MS EU show is about misuse, NOT -having- a monopoly, please show how DE Beers misuses their monopoly, and how this is "magnitudes worse" for WE, the people, then MS'ses -proven- misuse.
Thanks
"/Dread"
Nearly half of all MS revenues come from Europe, and they only have a monopoly supply of their software as long as EU governments say so. An MS embargo of Europe is a non starter.
the main problem is there abuse of being a monopoly not the actual monopoly it self.
Ok, I'm just ranting now. Cheers
There's nothing like a good old rant it helps keep the blood pressure down.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
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
Despite all the horror that DeBeers causes in third-world countries, from a European anti-trust perspective they only hurt diamond buyers: rich, bland, unimaginative money wasting types. I mean, they are getting ripped off for buying a glorified piece of coal they don't need and which serves no purpose at all. It means more taxes, great!
Microsoft, on the other hand, hurts all computer users, which is pretty much everyone in the EU.
Suppose Microsoft is forced to provide the option of a version of Windows XP without the media player? Now that it's pretty well established a foothold in the marketplace, how many customers and OEMs are really going to exercise such an option? Plus, they already have XP Embedded waiting that could be easily adapted to this purpose.
Net effect on Microsoft's media strategy: minor speedbump.
Fines: I've heard talk of 2e8 Euros. Even with the depreciation of the dollar, MS has 6e10 dollars in cash. That's about, oh, 0.3 per cent. Like, hurt me.
Effect on Microsoft's cash flow: minor speedbump.
This may appear stringent compared with the US Justice Department's settlement, but it's still no big deal for Microsoft.
As usual, the wheels of justice have arrived too little, too late.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Get real.
Yes MS would probably do fine without the european market, they'd lose a sizeable chunk of revenue but theyd still make a lot of money.
The problem is that since MS would basically be outlawed in europe, people would just use pirated windows copies until they had time and opportunity to make a swith to Linux or osX or whatever. And the police wouldnt mind since MS products wouldnt be protected by copyright laws.
So europe wouldnt lose anything while MS would lose lots. And worse (for MS) backing out of the EU market would leave it wide open for MS competitors to grow in and make lots of money and (gasp!) eventually maybe be big enough to take on MS everywhere.
Well, you are missing one significant point :
...) are a very little part of the market.
...
there are many car producers (Honda, Ford, Mercedes, Toyota, BMW, Saab, Fiat, Peugeot, Renauld and many more) which are sharing that market...
But Microsoft is NOT sharing the computer market with anyone... Microsoft do use bad practices to grab more and more share market and alternative (MacOS, Linux,
On one side, we have a competitive market, on the other side, we have a quasi-monopolistic market...
That allowed Microsoft to put a "Microsoft tax" on computer (which is slowly being removed as more and more PC makers are selling PC without Windows), to push many other poduct while making their competitor's fail (as if Honda was also selling park-doors and was using his position in selling cars to push people to only uses his doors ),
Anti-monopoly laws are to prevent such misuse of a dominant position in one market...
"I mean, if I go out to a Honda dealership, while I'm looking at an Accord, they don't tell me the specs of a Camry. They sell me a Honda product with Honda accessories."
You are, however, making the choice to buy Honda. It wouldn't even occur to 95% of people to choose anything other than a Windows PC such is their effective and pervasive monopoly on consumer computing.
"IMHO, if Microsoft is forced to open their source to the European market, they should just pull the plug. Don't sell it anymore, revoke all European lisences, and tell them to install Linux. You know for a fact that the general populus would flip. Most of them would flip at the idea."
Well, they wouldn't go for Linux, they would go for Apple instead because Apple have the muscle to market themselves as a Windows alternative in such a situation, the Linux distros do not. This has obvious consequences for major US tech companies such as Dell and Intel who would see a market of 400 million people disappear over the course of a year.
"OK, last thing. I also don't understand what jurisdiction the European market has over MS. If they are an American based company, how can they order MS to open their source and include other versions of Web Browsers and Media Players."
If I went and murdered some poor sap in Wisconsin, could I claim that the US courts didn't have authority because I'm a European based human?
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.
It's not really that MS have a duty to bundle other people's software, it's more that in a capitalist system they have a duty, or a requirement, to compete on a capitalist basis: in other words in a manner which produces the best deal for consumers by open competition - the so-called "American Way". The governmental view is that it's fair enough (although sadly not true) that they obtained their existing monopoly by being the best OS available but it's not okay for them to use that monopoly to prevent further competitive battles taking place. MS do not like the capitalist model (in fact, the reality is that they have never competed in the open market and won, having ridden to their current position on the back of IBM) and would much prefer a Stalinist system where the state mandates that all the people use the one approved system, enforced by DRM and controlled by one, unelected, man who is replaced only on his death. Basically, Microsoft is about as American in philosophy as as Fidel Castro.
Honda do not have a monopoly on car sales and so governments generally are not concerned about their arrangements for cd-players etc. If you don't like it then there's plenty of other car companies to choose from. Plus, of course, Honda are not as well known for bribing, lying and stealing and generally treating the law of their home country as an amusing joke as Microsoft is.
Finally, MS is a US company but they want to play hardball in the EU so that's the juristiction issue. MS don't have to sell their products in the EU, and I for one would be very happy if they didn't. Good riddance to bad rubbish, as we say.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.
It's no surprise that the talks ended. Here's a rough transcript of the proceedings that I was able to smuggle out of Brussels:
Monty: Microsoft, we're going to levy heavy penalties for your past behavior.
MS: Now, wait here: let's compromise.
Monty: Okay, let's here it.
MS: How about you don't levy heavy penalties for our past behavior.
Monty: [silence]
MS: Well?
Monty: Heavier fines.
- The Amazina Llama
I hope the EU has the strength of will to really stick it to MS, in terms of both fining them and forcing them to change their business practices. Not because "MS is the evil empire" -- I'm an MS developer, I love their tools and such -- but because a precedent needs to be set that will force Microsoft to address its monopolist strategies. Competition is good for consumers, encourages innovation and lowers prices -- and this is something that Microsoft has been railing against for over a decade.
Anywho, I hope the EU hits Microsoft with the maximum $3 billion fine and forces them to separate their Media Player from the OS. In doing so, the EU will not only make a dent in MS's much-vaunted cash reserves, but they'll also hammer home the point that their strategy of tying apps to their OS to invade new markets won't fly. And if hitting them in the coffers won't significantly prevent them from subsidizing these strategies, it will definitely raise a hue-and-cry amongst their shareholders, to whom Microsoft is ostensibly beholden.
Too bad we don't have a government that will take this kind of action here in the US, tho.
For f#%&'s sake - You didn't even read his post!
The problem is _most_ consumers don't CARE if MS is an anti-competitive monopolist... they CARE if they get what they want - an OS that is pre-installed and easy for them to attempt to figure out. No matter what linux fanatics say (mods can mod this troll if they -want- to, but it's true), the truth is that linux may be user-friendly, but it's VERY picky about it's friends. This is to say that it requires more intellectual investment than most are willing to put toward it to run it properly... even systems with it pre-installed can cause some difficulty with upgrades and using their 'favorite' programs.
Bottom line is, it's no suprise, and people will keep buying from MS as long as they give them what they want, unless something else comes along. Linux cannot provide that (yet), and the masses will _alway_ stick with the status-quo until beat over the head.
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.
We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds,
We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets,
We shall fight in the hills;
Sounds like our last family vacation.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Most slashdotters are fiercely anti-Microsoft so it's understandable they were elated by the EU news.
But is anti-trust law really good for most people in the long run? I'm no economist but I have first-hand experience about the side-effects of the anti-trust law.
I can say from my experience that if Microsoft were forced to its knees, most slashdotters would suffer in the long run.
When AT&T was a monopoly, scientists, engineers, and technicians had a great time in the telecom industry. There were a lot of talents working in the then lucrative telecom industry and a lot of innovations funded by AT&T's phone bill income, including UNIX (I am not saying AT&T is the sole creator of UNIX but a very significant contributor), the father of LINUX.
After AT&T was broken up, the phone call price dropped significantly, a big short term benefit to most consumers. But the drop in revenue forced out a lot of talents from the industry because there were no more money to hire them. I know a lot of talented engineers who spent years in the telecom industry but had to throw away all the domain expertise to switch career to wall street.
I think in a sense Microsoft's high profit margin is good news for LINUX vendors. That means they can charge a lower price than Windows and still make a decent profit to fund long term R&D. If Microsoft were forced to compete in a market where prices go down the toilet, like what happened to the telecom industry, then LINUX vendors will suffer as well. When the money flowing into the software industry dwindles, most slashdotters will lose their career just like what happened to the engineers in the telecom industry. Right now it is a business strategy to give some open source software away for free in the hope that customers will buy the enterprise version, by that time you will be forced to give away a lot more than even the open source people want. The entire software industry can no longer sustain all the R&D going on right now. Is that really a good thing for consumers in the long run?
Is it really a good idea for government to decide what is good for consumers? You have to think about the answer without bias. Just because the government sided with you this time doesn't mean it is a good thing for you in the long run.
Windows 3.0 did not have media player as far as I remember. They made big fuss in 3.1 when some basic sound tools were introduced as "multimedia"
R Yup. Video players are simply an extension of basic sound utils.
M$ is a monopoly (repeat monopoly). That is why certain retriction apply (and more should) that do not exist if the market is competitive.
There is no crime in being a monopoly. Several companies are lucky enough to have a disproportionate amount of market share. This is nopt a crime, and no restrictions should apply. Microsofts crime was being anti-competitive. They were using their dominant position to bully providers into only supplying Microsoft applications. The only reason being a monopoly is at all relevant is that if they were not a monopoly, these tactics would not have worked. People would have simply switched to their competitors.
ok, let's give it a shot ;-)
... it's funny to see their 'drea
Open Source is nice, for example, but does that mean proprietary software is "unfair?"
not open source - monopolies are unfair. There's nothing unfair about normal competition, but a monopoly has a lot of weight to throw around and that usually has the effect of sheer quantity squashing undiscriminately all competition, be it qualitatively superior or not. Think IE for instance. And no, it's not that 'monopolies aren't allowed to innovate' - it was bundling IE with the ubiquitous OS that achieved the effect, not merely producing it.
For the car analogy to work, it should read there's one hugely dominant car brand and things like roads, carwashes and so on are slowly getting 'optimized' to work with tht car first. Otherwise you can just buy a new car, no harm done. You have to do a little research beforehand, but that's unavoidable. And you have some freedom of choice in the car market, at least.
The problem with WMP for instance is that it only exists for Windows - then Windows being so widespread the move that's already happening is WMP-type formats are (about to become, anyway) just as widespread. Would you want wmv to be accepted as THE standard HDTV codec?. This in MS leveraging its Windows monopoly to dominate the media - a WMP monopoly underway and the two combined will have a tighter control on the consumer market. After all, one would want to be able to play all those wmv discs on the home computer and windows will be the only way to do it, if this happens. (disclaimer - I realise the codecs aren't tied to the player, but this is not the point - different players would come with different default codecs and they can compete on merit instead of on the default player. What if. And there's always the problem of new codecs - if MS does not provide support for ogg/ogm and sets WMP to fail to retrieve the codec everytime, will the average consumer even know where to look for them? a player monopoly cn turn into a codec monopoly quite easily.)
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?
Again, you're missing the point here. no default Windows Media player != no default player! it means OEMs are free to install whatever player they want. Right now, it's quite hard (and expensive) for a oem to untie WMP from the OS - so why would they do it? MS is effectively forcing people to use their player. And no, installing a second/third additional player won't help here - WMP already has an unfair position here. Besides, doe to the competition being MS, few people would try to produce an alternative, player or codec. And that brings the other point in - opening the APIs. Would you consider making a Windows movie player when you know WMP will always work better because the OS has a special 'embrace' for it (read as 'API hooks')?
So here's fair - or rather unfair. Your Mandrake subscription won't help them play WMP formats. And if MS locks the home media in their formats, that will drive Mandrake out of business sooner than bad management, since they in particular sell a desktop-oriented distro. Right now, you can play dvds with decss/dvdread and windows files with windows codecs. That's not a 'level field' already. What will happen when the next format war is won by MS?
I guess my biggest problem with all this is that it is not going to make MS go away, or even lose marketshare.
again, this is targeted at 'future market share', mostly (and here's the hope that it has at least partial success). I for one don't want MS imposing its Windows-only formats everywhere. OS now, media already happening, mobile phones next
It will only really awake a lot of people and organisations for the first time, and make them see how insane it is to make themselves totally dependant on an entity they have nothing to say about.
Yes, it will buy MSFT 1 or 2 years, but in the meantime everyone will fevereshly work on MSFT escape plans.
Unfair in EU law generally includes things like
Overcharging for a monopoly product to fund goods sold under cost price into another market in order to destroy the competition in that market and become a monopoly there
Using your monopoly position to leverage other advantages (eg the if you ship windows you license us all your patents' type stuff)
The EU is generally happy for monopolies to exist providing they are not abusing their position too much and we have monopoly suppliers in various business areas that have existing as monopolies for a long time without being convicted in US courts, fined in EU courts, raided in Japan and so on.
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.
Splitting up their products and selling them separately would be "fair". Bundling add-ons with a monopoly product is not fair.
Think back to the days when AT&T was the monopoly phone provider. AT&T sees the growing popularity of overnight delivery and says, "hey, we're a communication company, and overnight delivery is a type of communication. Let's get into that business as well."
At this point though FedEx is well established as the industry leader in overnight delivery. AT&T can't compete in this market without some help so it decides that free overnight delivery will be included with all phone subscriptions. At the same time it raises the price of phone service from $20/month to $100/month. In AT&T's version of events the new service is "free" and the price increase is unrelated, but obviously that service has a cost and that cost is being passed to consumers.
Microsoft would have you believe that Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player are integral parts of the OS and are given to consumers totally free of charge. They refuse to unbundle these components and reduce the price of the product appropriately. That's simply not fair. The line has to be drawn somewhere so that other companies can produce products for the Windows platform without the threat of Microsoft bundling in anything that proves comercially successful.
The problem is that every time they get called on this nonsence, the punishment is laughable. If they are allowed to continue selling the bundled version while being forced to sell an unbundle version at a slightly reduced price no-one will go for it. They have to be forced to unbundle conpletely and spin-off the portions of the company that produce the bundled items.
In the AT&T example I gave it would be like AT&T offering phone service w/o overnight delivery for $99.50. Obviously consumers are going to pay the 50 cents and get the overnight delivery service. The only way to avoid the problem is to tell AT&T that they simply can't get into the overnight delivery business.
The EU antitrust until now mainly hit european companies. You are just using blind "patriotism" to support a US company, which by the way is mainly damaging other US companies. Incredible and very disturbing that your port got modded to 5/insightful.
I am all for the EU decision vis a vis M$. Hooray! Kill the bastards, etc. As for De Beers and diamonds...don't get me started. Diamonds are plentiful. They are NOT worth what is paid for them as they come a dime a dozen. What De Beers and the rest of the cartel do is create an artificial scarcity of diamonds totally at odds with reality so they can charge loads of money for a frickin rock. To do this, they also setup a monstrous situation in Africa for those who live around, or work in, the diamond mines.
How's about the EU (and USA) get together and eliminate the diamond monopoly which is artificially and improperly limiting the amount of otherwise plentiful diamonds and creating, as a direct result, a very bad humanitarian problem for those in Africa who live around the mines?
If you want to deal with a commodity that is truly valuable due to a very real scarcity, then you should deal with metals like platinum, titanium, gold, and the like. Get out of the frickin' rock collecting business.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
By doing that they are making it significantly harder for the competition to stay viable, thereby removing consumer choice.
Keep in mind that the US court system had decided that microsoft should be split up, but then lost that ruling upon microsofts' appeal. Microsoft can still appeal anything that the EU courts decide at this point.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
There is a long history in the EU of striking down acquisitions and meregers of EU companies based on lack of competition fears.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
No, its akin to the government telling an artist to keep painting but to stop bullying all other painters to use the same brands of paints, brushes and canvases that he uses.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Microsoft should be forced to release ALL source code and documentation for EVERY product they released during the company's existance under the GPL. They should be forced to give all their assets to the Free Software Foundation. Microsoft should be forced to shut down. And Bill Gates should be forced to give Linus Torvalds all of his personal assets, and work for Linus as a janitor. And pigs should be forced to grow wings and fly.
Here goes my Karma, and maybe I just don't understand how the anit-trust laws work, but the way Microsoft used it's brute force to slowly build an empire and weed everyone out. Isn't that what ALL companies are trying to do? Be number 1? Weed out the competition? Make mass quantities of $$$?
As a business owner it's hard for me to comprehend. In my line of work there is way more work than there is developers to do projects, so I don't worry about all the other developers out there.
However, ultimately if I could handle the load, I would absolutely love to be number one and weed out competition? Is that wrong? Maybe I need an attitude adjustment.
Not so much for the money but for the glory of being number 1 and having the best products and services and having everyone come to me because they know I'm the best.
I guess I'm looking at a company like Wal-Mart who kind of falls in the gorilla shoes when it comes to generic merchandise and even groceries. It seems like they've done a lot of pushing and knocked out a lot of local businesses here and there, but at the same time they've shown some restraint. Is this soley to avoid being nailed with anti-trust laws?
The only thing in my eyes that goes against Microsoft is that it's not like it was one man's baby that led them to the top. If Bill G. had developed the original software and been active in development all the way to now and it wasn't a corporation would it still be wrong?
Or a better question... If they hadn't done all the gorilla tactics of forcing other companies out of business and they had gotten where they are just by having a superior product (i'm not saying they do, I'm saying what if...) would they still be a monopoly?
I guess all these monopoly like tactics are things I take for granted as just agressive moves to win business. I'd be interested in reading over the actual law to see what it says you can and can't do.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
If Microsoft were based in one of the EU countries instead of the US, the process would have been significantly different.
I wonder how much the adventure in Iraq has affected the EU's position towards MS?
Their profits from abusing their monopoly are at least tens of billions. This EU fine is just a speed bump for them, and profit-wise, abusing their monopoly paid off. They continue to serve as an example to other companies of how breaking the anti-trust laws makes you lots of money, and the government won't do anything that will cause you to regret your actions.
The worst the government might do is tell you not to do it again, and make you pay a token fine that sounds like a lot to the folks flipping burgers but isn't substantive compared to your profit from locking out competitors.
All that said, hey, the EU is better than the US at antitrust. Yeah!
Maybe I can consider porting reiser4 to Windows for use in the EU. I'll be watching to see how things unfold.
now THAT would cause MS some pain way beyond the sub-billion euro level they are talking about for the fine itself.
Not when it comes to operating systems it isn't! What about if I want to go to a PC vendor and buy an empty PC because I want to run Linux or FreeBSD on it. How many vendors will sell me a blank PC and refund me the cost of the pre-installed Windows XP?
The answer is very few because of the way in which they have been "bullied" by Microsoft to sell pre-installed PCs. If they don't do that, MS comes down hard on them and charges them more per Windows XP license, thus cutting their profit margins which are already lean.
I agree that Joe Average probably doesn't give a damn about Linux or other alternative OSes but Windows is being turned into a platform to generate more income for Microsoft from every user's pocket and he should be made aware of that and protected from it.
The fact is that if you use recent MS software, be that Windows XP, WMP, MS Office, etc. you are, in effect, sanctioning and supporting closed proprietary data formats that you will have to end up paying to license from MS in the future - either because you are trapped in their planned "rental" model for their software or because media-related hardware you buy in the future will have an MS "tax" levied on it to use those licensed formats - and you will have no choice but to pay it.
Microsoft do not like open formats because it means they cannot make any money from incorporating those into their software. TCP/IP was forced upon them and, for the moment, they have to support formats like MP3, MPEG, TXT, JPG, etc. because of the widespread use of those. But you can see for yourself how DRM is now being pushed and you can be sure that formats like WMV, WMA, DOC, XLS, etc. are intrinsic to that push.
MS is not satisfied with just having its OS and apps on your desktop - it wants to control all of your data and charge you for the privelige.
You may want to hand over your personal freedoms to MS but I'd prefer it if you didn't hand over mine also.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Geez, that's easy! Just the other day, I went to buy a ruby ring. The store would only sell me a ring with a diamond. I reiterated my desire for ring with a ruby, not a diamond. The store said they couldn't sell the ring with a ruby -- if they did so, De Beers would vastly increase the price on any future diamonds the store purchased for their rings. I asked for a plain ring, without a gemstone of any kind, thinking I could try and install a ruby on my own. Again, the store refused, although they pointed out that I could buy the diamond ring, remove the diamond after I brought the ring home, toss it in the trash, and then install the ruby if that's what I really wanted.
The store was obviously more concerned about the economic penalties of disobeying De Beers' policies than gaining the business of people who preferred a choice of gemstones, like rubies instead of diamonds. It's truly frightening how much influence De Beers has in the ring-selling industry!
Oh, wait -- I seem to have made a few typos...
Whoops -- I guess I don't actually have a story that applies to De Beers after all. My apologies for straying so far off the parent poster's topic...
A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
You people just hate Bush especially more because he's a conservative Republican.
Somehow I doubt that. A lot of us outside of the US wouldn't understand exactly what a US Conservative Republican is. An Australian Republican is different from an American Republican for instance.
I can't speak for anyone else but I hate him because he's a dangerous, obstinate, self-serving moron who fraudulently took office and tries to run the world through fear, uncertaintly and doubt. He could be a fucking democrat for all I care.
The good news is I think all us non-USians are calming down and not directing hatred towards Americans in general. We hate your leaders, we hate your corporation-focused infrastructure and seemingly blind US focus. We don't hate you.
To all republican voters: we feel sorry for you. You must live in a pretty narrowly-focused universe.
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"