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.
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!
$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.
The EU will very likely stick to its guns. The only reason why the US didn't begins with 'W'.
It's a good thing that the EU is made up of so many different countries... in this case anyway.
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
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!
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."
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
I share the hope that the EU manages what the US Dept of Justice flunked.
However, as a citizen of the EU, I'd advise against getting your hopes too high. Our legal systems have considerable ability to delay and obstruct, for companies with enough money and determination.
The US DoJ looked set to implement a proper solution just a few years ago, but the election of President Bush put an end to that.
Changes of government in European states are not infrequent and can change the direction of the whole loose alliance that is the EU. Don't overlook the possibility that if the EU's governments move to the right, this case may be damaged.
In fairness though, Europe's courts are less subject to policital interference, so here's to hoping!
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
...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..."
The most incredible thing (and kind of funny in a shocking way) is that Microsoft is trying to use that very reason as some kind of excuse as to why it shouldn't be fined in Europe. The argument runs something along the lines of "... but we can do this in America! You can't fine us if we can do it in America!"
Hey, news flash for you Billy boy! In Europe, you comply with European law, and it's a lot harder to buy a few politicians to exert political pressure on the justice system.
-- james
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!
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.
No, no, no, you don't get it.
They are a monopoly on desktop OSs. There is no problem with that in itself. What they have been convicted of is of leveraging that monopoly to gain an unfair advantage in other markets. Namely, the media player market.
--
This sig is inoffensive.
Yeah, it is kinda embarrasing for the US when Europe has to take charge to deal with our own rouge company/monopolies. We're supposed to be the strongest, so why can't we deal with our own problems?
"For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
The problem comes in when a company like real or Netscape comes out with a product that is good and then Microsoft does two things.
r
They come out with a similar product, bundle it in the OS and then force/threaten their OEM's not to install the competitors. That is what is wrong.
Let's take your list. What if IBM/HP/DELL/Gateway decided to bundle:
OpenOffice
FileMaker
Winzip
RealPlaye
Mozilla (and change the default browser)
GIMP
Suns/IBM's JDK with Eclipes
Could they do this for almost no cost? Yep. Then Microsoft would suddenly raise the cost of EACH version of windows that IBM/HP or Dell buys (Like they did to IBM. Dell got Windows for ~$10 while IBM got it for ~$100.00, and they wouldn't sign any deal with IBM for MONTHS after the new OS was released, thus killing IBM desktop sales during that time)
So yes, I agree that I want a bunch of stuff bundled with my OS. (With the ability to not load it) But I hope that you would agree that most people want the best software bundled at the lowest price. We currenlty don't have that CHOICE. That is what is hurting consumers.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
They most certainly did bundle IE to "get us hooked", as came out in the original Judge Jackson DoJ anti-trust trial. IE was tightly integrated with the operating system to prevent Netscape from being able to create platform independent middleware, and it was the platform independent middleware they were most concerned about. By making using Netscape a "jarring experience" (Microsoft's words) and by encouraging the development of Microsoft-only webpages through technologies like ActiveX, Microsoft most certainly hoped to hook people on Microsoft-required content.
I'm also baffled as to why you think that it's the job of an operating system vendor to supply a bunch of tools that have nothing to do with the functionality of an operating system. We can have a competitive market, or we can put up with OS vendors including tools that are "just about good enough" to ensure that 90% of people do not switch, and hence the market for better alternatives isn't supportable. How is that a good thing?
Compare Firefox to IE, any number of email clients many of whom predate Outlook Express to Outlook Express, commercial virus checkers back when DOS included a Microsoft Virus Checker, etc, and ask yourself why people should be lumbered with Microsoft's third rate crap because Microsoft has killed, through the act of bundling, better alternatives?
Now, if Dell or HP, or frickin' Gateway wants to bundle this non-operating system related software with a computer, that's one thing (and, yes, that means Apple has a perfect right to), at least them doing so ensures a competitive market. But Microsoft doing it means that Dell, HP, and Gateway, etc, have to include whatever Microsoft includes. And that's not right, that doesn't create a competitive market, and it's Microsoft muscling into a market to the detriment of customers and for the sole reason of wanting to control who runs what, who is able to create what, who is able to see what, and what tools, as a result, they have to run everywhere else.
Right now what little choice we have is thanks to the Open Source movement, essentially a socialist enterprise (socialism in its original meaning of "a group of people working together to improve things for everyone" rather than the bizarre American "A government wanting to interfere in everything" definition), we're not seeing capitalism in its supposed "competition will improve everything" mode. It's time we did.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
It is much different to say:
"We are giving you product X with the purchase of product Y, whether you want it or not"
than to say:
"We are giving you product X with the purchase of product Y, and not only can you not remove product Y from your machine (as it is an integral part of the operating system), but we have taken special precautions to make sure that only product Y has access to features of product X that make it particularly useful; and by the way, your system provider signed a contract stating that they would not install product Z on this machine, so you're on your own if you want to install it. And don't complain to us if it is mysteriously disabled every now and then."
Linux distributions don't even compare. Yes, Mozilla is bundled, but if I want to get rid of it and use something else, it's nothing more than a dpkg --purge.
Bundling is not illegal. Product tying is legal too, except that it is a common technique by which a monopoly position is frequently abused, so it is something that frequently comes up in these cases when you are trying a company for abusing a monopoly position.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
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.
Microsoft is not innovating because it doesn't have to. It has an extremely solid framework in place ranging from software interoperability trade secrets to software patents to vendor lock-in contracts, all to ensure that no one will be able to compete with them legally or that the cost of starting up will be so great that no one will bother.
Their entire business foundation is placed upon a government intervention known as copyright, which has also not served the market. If it were 14 years and if software copyrights required registration of the machine-readable source code with the copyright office, we would already be benefiting from the Windows code of NT 3.1 vintage to serve interoperability efforts, even when they are unwilling to provide interoperability details themselves. However, instead, they are allowed to retain a perpetual monopoly on their software legacy, and any interoperability must be attained through reverse engineering. That is not a good formula for competition.
Without competition, innovation is not happening at the rate that it would in a healthy competitive market. You can sit there and argue all day that Microsoft deserves to reap the riches of their monopoly position without government interference, but every day they sit on their haunches deciding whether it's worth bothering to improve their products, progress in the state of software engineering and the leading edge for users is being held back. I don't know what dogma you subscribe to, but economists seem to have a pretty good formula for improving society, and competition is a fundamental basis of it. Where competition does not naturally exist, it is government's job to try to stimulate it as part of a successful economic policy.
It is utterly ridiculous that we have to depend on open source loving hobbyists and small businesses for the little innovation that comes out of the software industry today. Microsoft may be a monopoly, but they are no market leader. They are a disgrace to the computing industry. I hope this decision changes them permanently for the better.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Of course it does, when they sell them in Europe. American gun manufacturers can't sell their Saturday night specials in Europe just because they're legal in the US.
And in any case, MS has lots of subsidiaries in Europe, they're the ones that would be fined, and ultimately have their assets sold if they didn't pay.
Bill's worst nightmare would be a large MS-free zone that would breed competing software. He'll delay as long as possible, but will comply rather than abandon the EU market.