Slashdot Mirror
EU Fines Microsoft $613 Million, Officially
Decaffeinated Jedi writes "As reported by CNN.com, the European Union has hit Microsoft with a record US$613 million fine after a five-year investigation, finding the company guilty of abusing the 'near-monopoly' of the Windows operating system. Microsoft has been given 90 days to make a European version of Windows available without a media player and 120 days to give programming codes to rivals in the server market to allow 'full interoperability' with desktops running Windows. Microsoft plans to appeal the decision." Other readers point to coverage at
the BBC, ZDNet, Reuters (here carried by Yahoo!), and abc.au.net.
I hope that the EU actually sticks by its guns. That is one thing the US has not done. I hope the EU sticks to a punishment because M$ gets away with it they will only cross that line a little further if they end up getting off.
Evolution or ID?
Media player being bundled costs the consumer money even if they don't want it. It also allows Microsoft to further leverage its market position once WMP is ubiqitous!
As for the 'orders' on API documentation? Woohoo.
Microsoft is the perfect example of how capitalism needs a tight rein for it to work to the benefit of people, not big corporations!
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
How can the punishment serve a deterent, if the fine does not hurt??
Hey, that's my password you are typing
Right. Of course they didn't know. They just set up shop in a different country and assumed that US law would prevail. What's wrong with that ? (Hint: lots!)
Another quote:
Well, no wonder they're going to appeal, that removes 90% of their business practice!
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Give the lame Bill Gates can pay the fine with pocket change cracks a rest.
The restrictions on FUTURE MS actions is why MS is pissing in their pants over this ruling.
$613m is a lot of money, but will Microsoft try to use cupons, or "donate" software to schools, thus locking in more Microsoft users from a young age?
If the EU is smart it will force Microsoft to donate to CASH to open source, or educational groups, thus allowing people to break the Monoply by their own choice.
Microsoft will appeal, and the EU courts estimate it will take 5 years until a decision is made.
Al Capone murdered a couple people here and there (and ordered a couple other killings), participated in every sort of organized crime... they took him down for tax evasion.
When you know someone is evil you get 'em on whatever you can manage.
Within 120 days Microsoft is required "to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. This will enable rival vendors to develop products that can compete on a level playing field in the work group server operating system market. The disclosed information will have to be updated each time Microsoft brings to the market new versions of its relevant products." This is at least in theory a pretty absolute requirement; Microsoft has to publish whatever it takes in order for rival vendors' servers "to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers, and it must provide updates where necessary.
Microsoft currently licence this and it is this which they use to sell server OSes and apps using the ease of interoperability as a main reason. Server OSes and stuff such as MS Exchange earn them alot more than desktop OEM versions of XP. Ease of interoperability is what is getting companies to sign up to the ripoff Licencing 6 scheme. The requirement to open up the server interoperability means that Linux will go storming in big style.
Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
Aren't the time lines for these things rediculous? From the time an investigation starts, trail is held, conviction is appealed and re-tried, it takes about a decade to exact "justice" on an international corporation.
In the meantime, the victims such as smaller competing firms and consumers have long since picked up the pieces and moved on. The companies at the amepx of it all aren't even relevant anylonger (Netscape?).
Until the law can put some spring in their step, a $600 Million fine 10 years after putting awa your competition is paultry.
Break up Microsoft - THAT is the solution!
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
WMP is where the next battle will be fought.
.wma format.
ITMS vs. MSMS (MicroSoft Music Store).
I don't want my music in
if your pants fit well, it's not only because of the pants
The point is that the EU is trying to make MS less anticompetitive. That would set an excellent precedent, and is what Ballmer & Co. object to so strongly.
This is something that should have been done here in the US long ago, but unfortunately our government is for sale to the highest bidder.
You're not too bright are you? THIS DOES MEAN OTHER OSES. The main reason Linux has issues with Windows is that it has to "guess" alot of the blanks Microsoft deliberately keep to themselves.
Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
What happened to the notion of freedom, so rarely espoused or valued on Slashdot, of freedom from government intervention?
How can you believe that Linux is a viable competetor to Microsoft some of the time, yet support government intervention against Microsoft intended to make other competetors viable?
This position, held by most Slashdotters who have commented on this issue, is highly contradictory.
You can easily buy a PC without Windows on it... and if you don't like Microsoft you can use one of the many alternatives. If you are a business owner and want to stream media content, you can choose from one of the many alternatives.
1) People don't choose Microsoft because they have to.
2) People don't choose Microsoft because they're stupid.
People choose Microsoft because it offers benefits that they consider worthwhile, and as Microsoft's success as a business shows, people are willing to pay for these benefits.
So instead of supporting state action to help Microsoft's would be competetors, why not support alternatives that really stand a chance at success? Does anyone really think Sun Microsystems is part of the future?
Amazing magic tricks
And trust-busting is part of government regulation of capitalism. Get over it.
Things like:
* Microsoft Exchange
* Active Directory
* The non-standard Kerberos extensions
* Terminal Services for Windows
and probably dozens more, where buying the server locks you into buying the client.
It isn't the government's place to tell a company what they can or cannot sell.
it is when the company has killed off competition via illegal means.
So you wouldn't mind if my company sold your kids drugs? And there'd be no problem with me selling nuclear weapons to Islamic fundamentalists?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Hmmm.. good point...
if only there was a european competitor to IE ready to start making a fuss,
ahah.... we have a candidate.
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
I think you're interpreting the sentence wrong. I read it that Microsoft has to give relevant information to competing products that they can interoperate with Windows machines. What really differentiates a server from a desktop these days, except for how its setup.
Ultimately, if Microsoft has to allow other server products to interact with its desktops, then other desktops will also be able to interact with it's desktops and when Microsoft makes a server worth using, it'll be based on their desktops, so they will play along too.
-N
I've nothing to say here...
Lets turn things the other way around. Hypotheticaly, do you think an American court would hesitate to fine a European company a big amount? As big as it might be?
Why did the Bush administration raised taxes on steel imports from outside the US?
Pure economical protectionalism, my friend.
If you had bothered to read the article, rather than falling into the fuckwad category, you would have noticed that:
"The biggest antitrust punishment until now was a 462-million-euro fine imposed against Roche Holding of Switzerland in November 2001, for its role in a series of vitamin cartels."
And I don't want my music in any format related to Quicktime.
Do you think uncle Steve will oblige, just because he's from a somewhat smaller, trendier company?
I am so sick of this 'Apple is the underdog' bs. WMA sucks. Apple's formats also suck in a number of ways, although perhaps not quite as many.
Read Pynchon.
By allowing Microsoft to charge royalties on implementing interoperability interfaces when they are covered by patents ot other titles, it makes it impossible for a free software project to implement interoperability. The Commission once again shows that it cares only for competition ... among multinationals. ..." :-)
For the Europeans: this is one more reason to reject software patents. "Encore un effort
Curiously the French version of the press release says "reasonable and non-discriminatory" while the English only says only "reasonable". I guess that's meant to please the French and Microsoft at the same time
...that in a time when incredible shortcomings of Microsoft's OS are found, some of you actually talk about 'American/European (skewed) relationships' and how 'unfair this is to an American company'.
For once look at the big picture, and forget that Microsoft is an American company, and the EU filed a European verdict:
Microsoft is a major global player in an international market ruled mainly by European and American companies together.
In this playing field it is only fair that a referree - no matter if US or EU - rules when a player crosses the legal line.
It is to the benefit of both the Europeans as the Americans in the long term, and we will pick the fruits of this decision in time.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
...but the only reason this is a "record" fine is because our own government CAVED IN and let them off the hook after a decade-long trial. After spending a *huge* amount of money in court, the US government sternly told MS they had to promise to release a service pack.
If our government had stuck to its guns from the first time of many that MS was taken to court, the tech landscape here would be vastly different, I think. Hey, BeOS might even be alive, and Linux and Macs would CERTAINLY have more momentum than they do!
Even if MS pays this in cash rather than software, it's still pocket change, currently sitting happily in the MS account and earning them interest. So they won't earn as much interest this year. Big deal. This won't change anything. At best it's less money for MS to pay SCO with.
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."
No they wouldn't. Did the US gov't do all they could do to stop Microsoft? No. It was a joke. If Microsoft was European and had the anti-trust brought against them in the US I think you'd have seen a far stiffer ruling. And I don't know that I agree with you that they were come down on hard. If Microsoft made what *I* make a year, it'd be a bitch. That fine is laughable at best to them. As for the rest of the decision, it's well deserved.
We will soon see a new set of installation dependancies for .NET framework, MSXML, etc.:
"Requires Microsoft Media Player 9.0, greater to run".
Well, it worked the last time!
NPR this morning was stating that Microsoft will appeal (Wow that is a suprise). They said that an Appeal could last up to seven years. In that time, longhorn v2 will be out and support for XP will be cut off. This will make the case a moot point. Even if they loose the appeal, Microsoft won't pay.
:-)
Swift justice, it seems, works just as fast in Europe as it does here.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
You sure don't understand basic economics. The vendor will charge whatever the market is willing to pay, no matter how much it cost to make the product.
That's why about 90% of the Windows- and Office-prices is pure profit while they are losing money on XBox, WinCE and many other things.
If anything, the punishments will lower prices for Europeans because of increased competition. Just look at Thailand where Microsoft dropped their Win+Office prices from 600$ to 37$: http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32110.html
Always remember: Only the loyal customers get ripped off. Those who for example run their servers on Unix get huge discounts (like Munich)
Riiiight...
But if you are the only provider of X (a legal monopoly) and you leverage that monopoly to drive out providers of Y and gain a second monopoly, then it becomes the government's place to tell you what you can and can't do.
Twat.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
According to NZHerald and independent.co.uk, some members of parliament are not happy with the EU's decisions.
...another rexample of EU assaulting another a poor defendless honest american corporation? awww ..pfft!. it seems more like an example of how much control MS and any other big corp has over the American government.
"This ruling is yet another example of the EU assaulting a successful American industry and policies that support our economic growth," said US Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Microsoft's home state of Washington. She called on President George Bush to "engage" with Brussels on the case.
[alk]
I think in an optimal world you would have companies that offer "Windows distributions" and giving you exactly that service -- Windows bundled with a couple of other apps that do not need to be Microsoft products (this is the difference to Microsoft doing the bundling). Say, Windows + Mozilla + StarOffice. Or even offer several different alternatives (like offer both IE and Mozilla). Then you would have choice AND convenience, like when you buy a Linux distribution.
What "media player market?" Is there a version of Windows Media Player that costs money? All they're doing is giving stuff away. They bundled IE not to get us hooked and jack up the prices, but because an OS should come with a browser. IE is free (as in beer). MediaPlayer is free.
Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of people who want to have their cake and eat it too. If Microsoft sold a stripped-down, bare-bones OS, people would rip on them for being such tightwads. "Richest software company on the planet, and won't even give us a friggin' media player." So instead, they bundle stuff. Stuff that should come with an OS. And we still rip on them.
I read an article the other day that blamed Microsoft for all these virus attacks. The author was incensed, and fumed that Microsoft "should include built-in antivirus software with the OS, with automatically-updating virus definitions. That would fix all these virus problems." I thought to myself, "Sure, and at the same time, they'd be sued into oblivion by Norton, Symantec, and anyone else in the anti-virus business."
To be honest, I think an OS should include anti-virus software. Also, all of the following:
And probably a bunch more I can't think of off the top of my head. I expect to be able to install an OS and actually do something with the computer. Am I alone here?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
What is often forgotten is that most competitors of MSFT are also US companies, so to limit MSFT's monopoly would harm one US company, but benefit a lot of others many of which are also US companies.
So, the economic balance does not explain the US failure to correct this economically damaging condition, there must have been another reason. Probably plain old bribes, or just stupidity from the part of the Bush government to see the economic benefit to have sound markets with sound competition.
Consider the two scenarios below. Do they both sound acceptable morally or legally to you?
1. Moebius develops new cat washing machine. Markets it well, ensures he continues to maintain a quality product. Moebius is a success.
2. Moebius develops a new cat washing machine. Markets it well, signs illegal contracts to block others from selling competing products. Moebius now has the monopoly in cat washing and releases a range of flee powder that can be added to the machine. He does not let anyone else know how to make their flea powder work with his machine, he gets a monopoly in flea-powder. A rival company launches a brand of cat brushes designed to work with the cat washing machine. Moebius prevents dealers from bundling these cat brushes with the machine in favour or the new range he has launched. Moebius now has a monopoly in cat brushes.. and so on and so on..
Do you see a difference here? In much the same way, you would expect a convicted fraudster to be banned from running an investment fund, you should expect a convicted monopolist to be treated differently.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Living standards in most of the EU are not much short of the US, and in places much higher (e.g. Luxemburg). We pay higher taxes, but we get a lot for it: Free, Universal Healthcare, near-free higher education.
Add healthcare and education costs costs (including insurance and lawyers) to your US tax bill, and you get a higher bill than in a typical EU country. Basically, US citizens are getting bad value, and a lot of ideological brainwashing to make 'em think they are doing well.
Sad, really. I thoroughly recommend a trip over to Europe to any American. Trailer parks do not exist. Homelessness is rare. In many parts, police are not armed.
Even if there is a large licensing fee, don't you think IBM and Novell/Suse, not to mention Apple, would pay it just so they can offer workstations fully compatible with Exchange and Active Directory, or servers that can replace Exchange and Active Directory? I'm salivating at the thought of that.
That must mean that Ford, GM, BMW, etc. are all monopolies, right?
There are a number of different Linux distros that have Mac versions available, you know. How about one of those?
And this makes Apple a monopoly how?
You must be using a different definition of monopoly than the rest of us are.
You can bet that MS would be willing to go to such extreme's as pulling out of the EU market rather than supply the source.
This is the third time I've had to correct this piece of silliness, here we go again. If they pull out of Europe they lose nearly half of all their revenue. Europe is by far their biggest market. They would also at a stroke cease to have a monoploly on the world's desktops. It just aint gonna happen.
as soon as the EU tries to force their hand, it becomes an EU vs US thing (guess who will win that battle).
If recent form is any guide this would be a shoe in for the EU. The US may be the only military superpower, but they are no longer the dominant economy.
people want this software
Actually people use the software that the content provider determines that they do. If it's in Real they use Real if Quicktime they use Quicktime and so on. Most consumers just use the most heavily promoted product that works with the format they need to view.
It is so simple though!
Microsoft is a monopoly, Apple is not. Therefore Microsoft has to play by a different set of rules than Apple does.
If people don't like Apple, they don't use. Struggling not to use Windows is difficult.
...The U.S. is preparing to fine Volkswagen $231 million USD for shipping their cars with a stereo. All vehicles sold by them must be delivered without any radio, but with an extensive, powerful speaker and power amp system by 2006. Said system must have sophisticated control protocols and electrical interfaces and specifications for them must be available to car stereo manufacturers in 2005.
Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
Considering the fact that the EU now has some 500 million people, and a whole bunch of other countries are coming in. Many of these countries are below western european standars when it comes to computers, which means there is a large market coming up in the next few years. Poland, the baltic states and so on are all going to spend more money on computers as their economies grow, and I very much doubt MS would want to miss out..
The problem is not if they will comply to the rules, but if the rules will come through. I do think there are hopes for this though, as the EU has fined companies before for not following legislation. Some, like Hoffman La Roche, even got the new principles unofficially named after them afterwards, when the european court of justice had had its way with them. I sincerely hope for a stronger EU.