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...
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.
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.
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
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
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=
"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"
I think there is a lot more hope that EU will stick to it's guns than the US (and I say that as a US citizen). There is much less financial/economic risk to the EU to do this vs. the US, being that MS is a US company. So it will be easier for them to actually keep to their judgement.
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!
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.
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!
I don't think I agree with this suit. Media Player isn't near a monopoly in media players. Almost everyone has Quicktime installed, Real comes preinstalled on Dells, DivX is out there. There are things Microsoft has done that I don't think were right, but bundling software with the OS isn't one of them. Anymore I expect some type of media player, a browser, and e-mail client, whatever to come with my OS, be it OS X, Windows, or Linux.
Things like the BeOS lockout are what I'd think should be the focus of antitrust type suits against MS, not value add to Windows.
"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
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.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
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.
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.