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...
poor SCO lawyers might have to take a pay cut now. :(
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.
Does anyone else consider it a bit weird that they're using Windows Media Player as bait ? That's a division where there's at least some competition from Quicktime and Realplayer. The browser war was a far more dirty one IMO, and microsoft is STILL making it practically impossible for competitors to integrate their browser properly over IE.
And what about the java fuckups ? The Samba debacle ? The OEM backmailing ?
I don't get it....
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
Before you all start moaning that EU is anti-American, note that the complaint was made by Sun & Real (both american companies) which resulted in this ruling.
Microsoft will appeal, and the EU courts estimate it will take 5 years until a decision is made.
Where does the fine go? Spending it on Real player/Quicktime development might be poetic justice?
Omnis amans amens
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
Sadly the appeals and whinging are likely to drag on for many years.
Hopefully the EU will be able to make the ruling stick in the end. The fine may not be all that much to MS, but being forced to unbundle Media Player, etc could have quite an effect on their future strategies.
Homme petit d'homme petit, s'attend, n'avale
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.
$613 million? Oooh, not. That's pocket change to Microsoft, who has a war chest of billions of dollars -- but of course this won't stop it from passing the cost along to its customers, and blaming the EU for increasing the price of Microsoft products.
In the end, this court decision isn't going to amount to anything. Competition has already been hurt. Customers aren't going to want to pay the same price for a version of Windows without WiMP. Competitors won't be given access to Microsoft's API's; MS will appeal and drag this out for a very long time. And in the end it will ignore the court orders, just like it did in the US, knowing that its punishment will be yet another lengthy court process which it can drag out and then ignore again, all the while telling its customers that government is trying to raise prices and stifle innovation. Maybe it'll even try to settle by again offering to install Microsoft software in schools for free (until the license has to be renewed in a few years, that is).
This sounds like the most important part to me. What does this mean? The CNN article is incredibly vague. Is MS allowed to place restrictions on the licensing of this "program code"-- i.e. forcing anyone who looks at code to sign an NDA saying, say, they won't use the information in a GPLed product? What do they define by "in the server market"? Is this just saying MS has to make its WMA code available, or is this Windows in general?
If the latter, that's absolutely fantastic. That means we could start seeing 100% compatible versions of Wine, freed from the difficulty and endless trial=and-error of duplicating an API where so much is undocumented and "bug compatibility" is so crucial.
If the former, that this means MS has to divulge the necessary information for third parties to be fully compatible with WMP serving, that's not quite so interesting.
Incidentally, I want to nominate this as the most bullshit argument MS apologists have ever put forth, ever.
Analysts say by forcing Microsoft to offer a version of Windows XP without Media Player, consumers could pay higher costs.
"If it were to be obliged to offer versions both with and without Media Player, then that would mean we would probably have double the number of consumer PC configuration in our shops. Of course this is product that is built before it is sold," says Brian Gammage from computer consultancy Gartner.
Wow. So Microsoft using Windows revenues to subsidize a hugely complex and unnecessary movie player and set of movie codecs doesn't increase costs to consumers, but Microsoft having to print up two differing sets of cheap cardboard to sell in stores does. Amazing.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
While the rest of the world reports the $613M fine against Microsoft as a standalone, the LinuxWorld report juxtaposes it with HP's confirmation - being reported by Reuters - that HP is wavering in its support for Windows on the desktop. Its notebooks and laptops will now support SUSE Linux. An HP'er concedes: "Does Microsoft like the fact that we do Linux stuff? Absolutely not." Is this the end of the beginning now in the Windows vs Linux desktop battle?"
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.
I'd make the stripped down version, and only sell it direct via snail mail order. </EVIL>
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
Read the EU press release from their own site (in your own language): http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p _action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/04/382|0|RAPID&lg=EN&disp lay=
Where does the money go after Microsoft pays? To charity? To the gov't?
-Colin
This is completely offtopic, but dont mod me down because it is in some way related (at least in the UK)
I tried to post this article but for some reason it was rejected in favor a completely pointless article about firewire and video cameras!
Anyhow it is important and should have been accepted!
to briefly put it;
Anyone here interested in Open Source, and supporting it in UK
government should digest this document and send your support/comments/insight
heres the link with downloads and stuff.
Its an important document and those here interested should read it and post related comments/ suggestions to the email address on that page.
What they are seeking to do is support evaluate both Open Source and Proprietary solutions; whilst doing their utmost to avoid vendor lock-in ; as is the case with Microsoft bundling IE & WMP (etc) with windows.
The document is an Open Draft, that means that right now it is not set in stone, and liable for change. If anyone here reads it and thinks it should be changed in anyway I would advise letting them know.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
in a front-page article a couple days ago that it has not yet been decided whether the remedy will be put on hold during the appeal and MS has to lose the appeal for the remedy to go into effect, or whether the remedy goes into effect now and MS has to win the appeal for the remedy to be redacted.
They said a judge had a forthcoming ruling on that issue. It seems quite possible to me the ruling would go in favor of the government, since it is quite clear that a remedy that begins in five years would be as good as no remedy at all-- it is quite easy to look at how quickly the tech market moves and how quickly MS has been able to take over previous previous tech markets once they start putting the veritcal-monopoly moves on, and argue that if the remedy waits for the end of the appeals process, it will be too late to do anything to help the competitors the remedy is meant to address.
Whether this has changed since then I do not know.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
"Steve Balmer commented, that the fine imposed by the EU is completely unreasonble, considering that you can buy a president in the US with much less.".
"There is a terrorist behind every bush"
500 Million here, 500 Million there, before you know it you're talkin' about some real money.
I RTFA, and I didn't see: what happens if they don't comply, or comply 1/2 and it's found that it doesn't cut it?
And this will be a bigger story if/when the sanctions immediately apply, instead of being enjoined until the end of the appeals process. Could go either way, I guess; but the first wouldn't allow Microsoft to play a waiting game.
--
$tar -xvf
Think about it, drug marketing teciniques are the same as microsofts. Pushers say this to kids all the time:
"Everyone else does it."
"Just try it once for free (a donation)."
"It lets you do things you could not do before."
The most important interfaces that need to be well documented are being able to interoperate between exchange (and outlook client) and to both serve office functions as a server and to keep open source office products totally compatible. This is what permits users to truly interoperte.
... it needs to be at the user or application level--that is where the practical rubber hits the road.
It is critically important the such interface documentation be available to all, not just big server vendors or closed source vendors that can sign license agreements--open source cannot sign agreements! The most important compatibility is not talking to Windows clients at the network level, but at the user/application level, both for platforms that support windows users as a server or as alternative systems that must interoperate properly.
Compatibility as a windows platform is overrated
It is not a matter of choice.
It is a matter that microsoft has a near monopoly. As such it comes other restriction. The main one(at least in the US and similar in the EU) is that you cannot use your monopoly in one area to get a monopoly in another.
Well, they have fined European companies in the past (Volkswagen for example), so your "theory" does not hold water.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
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.
However, I've converted people to Mozilla Firefox - once they see the popup blocking, tabbed browsing and the nice search engine selector. The problem is that lots of people don't see these things. There's no-one much in the mainstream media suggesting alternatives to users, so they keep on using IE/Office/WMP.
And that's crucial. The tech press can wow about Linux, OpenOffice and Mozilla all it likes. A lot of small businesses don't read the tech press, so keep on using the MS products.
In Europe, are the damages computed in a similar method? Also 497M Euros sounds small, but was this computed based on Microsoft's profits/revenues and anticompetitive practices only in the EU?
Microsoft will undoubtedly appeal . . . and this could take years. The market and the product mix could change a lot by then . . .
Rubbish. A free market economy needs intervention when monopolies arise, or it's no longer a free market economy (for many reasons, including price fixing and barriers to trade).
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.
Companies cannot do this - people need to be educated to use different systems, whereas schools almost exclusively teach MS products. If you choose a "free" alternative to Microsoft, the support and training required costs more than buying the Microsoft product in the first place. There's a skills pollution taking place - people aren't profficient with using computers, they're proficcient with using Microsoft products. That's what monopolies do.
actually, if you compare with other fines from the EU for anti competitive action, this is indeed the biggest, but not much bigger than the second.
and they did bash european companies too...
here is the top 5
1 Microsoft Corp (USA) in 2004
497 ME
2 Hoffmann-La Roche AG (Switzerland) 2001
462 ME
3 BASF AG (Germany) 2001
296.16 ME
4 Lafarge (France) 2002
249.60 ME
5 Arjo Wiggins (international) 2001
184.27 ME
6 Nintendo (Japan) 2002
149.13 ME
And this was modded Interesting???
0 ,1 129,603206,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicalscience/story/
In 2001 the same comission fined Hoffman-La Roche (Swiss) for 462m, and BASF (German) to the extent of 296m, for vitamin price fixing.
You may go back to your freedom fries now.
PS: One can only hope that an appeal will not be granted. It does not have to be, you know.
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
Is there any information on how they have to release that code? I recall them being forced to release documentation of APIs in the US for a reasonable license, which they set at around a hundred grand, fifty if you decided to not use it after a look.
Will the EU allow that crap too, or will it realize that Microsoft's largest competitors are likely to be OSS developers and a hundred-grand license would be about the same as not actually releasing it to their competitors?
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.
A friend of mine (in the UK) got a speeding fine. He found an old local by-law that said he could pay the fine in live chickens, to the equivalent value.
Hilarity ensued, of course.
Microsoft then makes sure it's very hard / very costly for people to chose alternatives. If you are a business owner and want to stream media content, you have to include Microsoft formats because that's what everybody has. In fact, paying for additional formats would be stupid, since everyone can view WMP, right?
This is (as the EU sees it) an abuse of monopoly. We, the people, have decided that this is not ok and companies shouldn't be allowed to do it. Hence, the ruling.
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.
Nonsense. I may be able to buy some sort of PC without Windows on it, but suppose, like most businesses, I have standardised on one supplier (like Dell). I go to their website. I pick my PC. Where is the Linux Desktop option? As for alternative media content. Downloading alternative players and installing them takes time and effort. This may not be much for an individual but for a company with 10,000 seats its time and money.
Until I can go to most major PC suppliers and get the option of alternative OSes and features pre-installed and configured for hardware there is no true competition.
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..."
If Microsoft removes WMP, they are going to remove the media codecs with it.
Any company that wants to compete will have to license and/or create media codecs for themselves.
There is obviously a lot of functionality available by default to any app developer in Windows.
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!
If releasing the full Windows APIs is part of the deal, it should be possible to provide a Mozilla based DLL to replace the IE one. Ditto Opera and others. If enough functionality is released to allow WindowsUpdate to work, any browser war will be formally over.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
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
People don't choose MS because they like it but because they need to. The nuance is what makes it an unfair monopoly.
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.
As other posted already pointed out the appeal will not help. MS has to pay right now and comply to the rulings already set by this court. If it appeals and they win the appeal later then this will be reversed.
Greetings,
Project Manager of Crystal Space (http://www.crystalspace3d.org). Support CS at http://tinyurl.com/cb3x4
The EU fine is $613 Million.
$613 Million / $30 Billion = 0.024
So ... they fined Microsoft roughly 2% of one year's sales. This "proportionate" and "balanced" ruling was because the "near-monopoly" tried for several years to "shut competitors out of the market". (quotes are from the EU Commission)
This is how losing 2% of my gross income would impact me on a weekly basis.
(myGrossIncome * 0.02) / 52 = myWeeklyImpactIfFined
So what do you casually spend more than 2% of your gross income on? Lunch? State sales (or VAT) tax? Gasoline? Porn?
The fine is neither harsh nor effective. Anyone want to take a guess at how much the competitors have lost every year?
In a working market economy, profits will be minimal. If anyone is selling a product with a high margin, some competitor will take makretshare by selling the same product with a lower margin. Either way, profits will be small.
/., is that the Libertarians are very visible here. Libetarianism is an ideology founded on the axiom that goivernment is evil, and nothing good can come from it. Thus, libertarians will never be able to understand how a market works.
Since the players in the market are motivated by maximizing profits, they will always try to circumvent the market forces, mostly by obstructing their competitors. For a company that holds a monopoly in one area, one way to do this is to bundle products from other areas. This is basically how Microsoft works.
Ensuring a working market is, in my view, the primary responsibility of a government.
The reason you hear otherwise often on
The right in Europe want their own monopolies to succeed, not an American monopoly.
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]
If MS has to disclose their API's *now*, it won't help them much if they win the case in five years, and get told that they don't need to disclose them anyway.
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.
Consistency is a property that is often overrated by geeks. In the real world, logical consistency often leads to such stupidity as monopoly, anarchism, facism, the religion of "free markets", and Libertarianism. There are two reasons for this:
First, logic is a process by which models are built, not a reality. As a modeling methodology, it is very sensitive to the axioms chosen from which to start the process and many "true believers" in logic are very non-selective in their axiom selection. In addition, the models produced by this method, like all models, distort some aspects of reality, and these models need to be probed for limitations and inacuracies and validated against the real situation. Again, those who most often prattle on about "consistency" are often least likely to test their models for the only consistency that really matters - consistency with the real world.
The second problem with consistency is that the real world simply isn't. The real world is an incredibly messy system. Can you predict with logical certainty that a particular lion will attack a wildebeast at a given time? That a human will make a certain stock trade? Human beings have evolved a highly complex, but inconsistent processing unit (called a brain) that copes pretty well with the world as a whole. Compared to this processor's proven longevity, the creation of logic has been a relatively recent innovation and one that is (as of yet) evolutionarily unproven. Given this, it is highly specious to assume that this new (and unnatural) processing mode is superior to the messier and fuzzier processing that has insured our (and other creatures') survival over millions of years. It is also most probably false that a pure use of logic is superior to a synthesis of the Aristotlian model and a more fuzzy one.
In short, cowboy, people ain't machines - stop tryin' to turn folks into them. I know it would make them a heck of lot easier to model of they were and you think that people would be a lot easier to understand if they were mechanistic and that your natural ability to understand mechanisms would give you an upper hand if they were and you'd be a lot more comfortable with that, but all that just means I'm really glad that you're not in charge. I refuse to surrender my humanity to your logic.
That is all.
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.
"If it appeals and they win the appeal later then this will be reversed"
Really? I can't see how that would work; are they going to suddenly make people not know what the API looks like again?
I strongly suspect Microsoft will get out of this one, through one method or another. For their business they have to.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Bill Gates was quoted as saying "Well, there goes my pocket change. Gotta hit an ATM sometime today."
Within 120 days Microsoft is required "to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation
The real hangup here is that this means they'll have to *write* it, not just release it.
I'm no legal expert, so I can't be sure how far Mr. Monti can go with his punitive measures, but I don't think he's gone far enough. In my estimation, only Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson had the right idea: split up the company. It's too bad he didn't have his way.
Mr. Monti points out that Microsoft's business practice of bundling is generally abusive, but his solution -- the creation of a new, slightly cheaper Windows version sans MediaPlayer -- is not going to make much of difference to the average consumer: for only $10 to $15 more, who in their right mind would pass up the chance to buy something as exciting as "Windows XP Media Plus"? As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Monti should have demanded an end to Microsoft's evil bundling practices (at least in Europe). Period.
As for the 500m Euro fine, I suppose it's more symbolic than anything else, since it amounts to about 1% of their cash reserves. However, it does create an unwelcome precedent that Microsoft are keen to avoid and which could lead to a lot more trouble for them in the future. I sincerely hope so.
I'm hoping somebody can clear this up. Does this mean that Microsoft has to help out projects like Samba so that Linux can communicate with Windows over SMB? Or does it extend all the way to helping Wine run Windows apps on Linux?
Personally, I hope it extends all the way. Imagine the Wine team not only having access to the Windows source (They sort of do now due to the leak, but they can't do anything with it), but being given legal permission by the government to use it, with Microsoft's help!
So, can somebody clear up how far this extends?
Part of how they can strongarm the OEMs is that WMP and IE are bundled with with OS.
If they have to have an unbundled version of Windows, then OEMs can supply other software instead. Imagine being able to buy a PC that might run Windows, but not comes with Mozilla and WinAmp (or Opera & Realplayer or Quicktime), but doesn't even have WMP and IE anywhere near it to hijack the User settings.
Opening up their formats and interface hooks can also help stop them being anticompetitive, as having to keep up with people who use Microsoft platforms won't automatically require having to use one yourself.
Plus, if nothing else, it shows Microsoft that they can't get away with being anticompetitive and automatically assuming that they'll be supported by the government.
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
MS is getting fined because they bundled WMP with windows? Is that correct?
Please tell me there is something more.
Are linux distributions not allowed to do this? OS X? Other os's?
Personally when my mother opens her new XP box, I want WMP installed along with a whole bunch of another apps(some zip type program comes to mind)
Help me out here.
The fine on Microsoft is extremely high (over 10% of cash reserves.)
The fine is not nearly as high as it should have been. The question is how much financial damage did Microsoft afflict on EU companies with their monopolistic behaviour. Actually, the EU is pretty lenient to Microsoft, despite this rather symbolic fine.
This appears to be an Anti-American fine.
Oh, is Microsoft == America? The EU couldn't know that, because we're still calling ourselves United States of America, and not MSUSA (1.0)!
This fine is absolutely not Anti-American, as you put it. It is trying to repair the damage caused by the incredible DoJ anti-trust settlement that Microsoft was able to buy from our current administration. By imposing sanctions against Microsoft, the EU is also protecting US consumers, who have been IMHO betrayed by that settlement. So it is a Pro-American fine, a fine which should have been imposed by our government in the first place.
cpghost at Cordula's 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
EU ruling quote :
:)
Microsoft abused its market power by deliberately restricting interoperability between Windows PCs and non-Microsoft work group servers
work group servers are not restricted to file servers and user authentication. This will most probably have connections to exchange server, calendar sharing and the like.
Maybe soon will evolution be eventually able to talk to exchange without a proprietary connector
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
While it is great to feel that the 10,000 pound gorrilla has been pricked, you have to begin to worry about the larger implications this issue has. Foreign governments will begin to weild the power to force companies to do things that fit within their specific way of life.
Remember Yahoo and the case of Nazi memorabilia?
Imagine if countries with more stringent beliefs the Middle East or South East Asia for instance became huge financial juggernauts, they could arm twist companies that want to do business with them to remove materials they find offensive e.g. eBay's adult section.
BTW, if you think this is pointless paranoia, search for what Google did to appease the chinese government in searching about rights abuse.
IMHO, Quicktime is more of a pain in Windows than Media Player which I never use either. Divx player, Vidomi, & GDivx & Winamp run ALL my media files without issue.
"without a media player and 120 days to give programming codes to rivals in the server market"
If your worried about what media player you have on your servers, you shouldn't be in charge of these servers in the first place.
TruePunk | Games
Who gets the money in the end? If MS shills out 497 million euros, whose coffers does it fill?
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.
All for it. But how many smokers have you met who've tried and failed to quit? Seems that until the packages warn and acknowledge that it's an addictive narcotic, regular liability laws should apply.
The hardware on my Inspiron (about a year old) works perfectly with Linux, and probably would've a year ago if Dell had provided drivers for their hardware instead of relying on the open-source community to write them. The non-Dell parts (vid card, sound, touchpad) are quite well supported. I think Dell's lack of a Linux option on laptops has more to do with support and demand. If they offered it, the sales would most likely be so low that it wouldn't be worth the extra effort. Most people don't know how to install an OS or use Linux, so they pick the OS they know.
Karma: Contrapositive
Apples music format is AAC, which AFAIK is not related to QuickTime in any other way than that QT can play AAC.
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.
...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.
The below letter was received by me at 18:35 eastern. (Yes I am a unix sysadmin, but keeping an eye on the market is prudent).
March 24, 2004
To Our Partners:
The European Commission today announced a decision against Microsoft in its
five-year investigation of the company. I am writing to provide you with more
information on the process that has led to this point and how we see it going
forward.
First, it is important to emphasize that, as Commissioner Monti has noted,
throughout this long investigation Microsoft has worked constructively with the
Commission and has sought to address all of the concerns relating to the case. As
this case moves forward, Microsoft will respect and fully comply with European law,
we will continue our investment in developing great technologies, and we will
continue to deliver our innovation to our partners and customers.
We were indeed able to reach agreement on all of the issues in the current case. In
doing so, Microsoft made far-reaching and very substantial concessions on both the
interoperability and media playback technology sides of the case. We volunteered a
set of obligations that would have been unprecedented in the technology industry or
elsewhere. Our settlement offer, which applied worldwide on both sides of the case,
would have resulted in over 1 billion competitor media players being distributed in
the next 3 years.
However, the Commission also required Microsoft to agree to a single formula that
would define how all questions concerning future innovation and technology
integration beyond the scope of the current case should be dealt with. As a company
that has been at the leading edge of the last 20 years of technology innovation and
development, we do not believe that it is possible or desirable to design a single
rule that would apply to all innovation and technology integration questions that
may arise in the future.
Innovating to the benefit of partners and customers has been the driving vision of
Microsoft--and the basis of its partner philosophy--since it started in 1975. Our
understanding of the needs of European partners and customers goes back to the time
when the company set up its first European operations 22 years ago in 1982. Many of
the innovations over that time have focused on language support, usability and
adding features that improve the user experience with their PC from the moment they
take it out of the box. And we seek to do this at a fair price by taking all our new
technologies to a mass market.
In many ways these additional technologies are core to user experience and to the
usefulness of the product for partners and customers. According to our research,
fully 80 percent of our European customers believe that Windows Media Player should
be included with Windows.
Computers have changed the way we live and work in the past two decades and
Microsoft is proud to have been part of that revolution. It is unfortunate that the
European Commission chose to take this route, but we also recognize and thank the
Commission for the professional and co-operative fashion in which they have
approached this case.
As we move forward through this process, we will remain focused on collaborating
with our partners and supporting product innovation to benefit Microsoft customers.
We will support European governments on the pressing issues that face us all:
computer security, spam, education and IT skills training. And we will help
increasing Europe's competitiveness in the technology field, creating an information
society and making sure that the online environment in which that society will
thrive is safe for everyone.
We will keep you informed of developments as the process moves forward.
Yours sincerely,
Allison Watson
Vice President, Worldwide Partner Sales and Marketing Group
See our press release for more information.
http://go.mic
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.