Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Calls EU Microsoft Decision "Unfortunate"
ogma writes "This one is especially ironic after the recent slashdot story on more of Microsoft's underhanded actions coming to light. It seems that the DOJ thinks Europe was too hard on Microsoft in its anti-trust ruling.. According to Assistant Attorney General Hewitt Pate, the fine 'may send the wrong message about antitrust enforcement priorities'..." Open Council writes "The Register points out that the EU has provided Microsoft with a major victory over its Open Source rivals because it will now be allowed to pursue royalty revenue from the APIs it publishes. Jeremy Allison says that the projects such as Samba, which he jointly leads, may face a prohibitive hurdle. The size of the fine is peanuts to MS but will be a bargain if it can lock out Open Source projects from using its API's."
Bill Gates revealed his awesome new creation... the Death Star. "It's capable of destroying entire continents, as we'll soon demonstrate." he was quoted as saying.
It surpasses fines the Commission has imposed on price-fixing cartels and that may send the wrong message about antitrust enforcement priorities, Pate said.
It seems like it sends a perfectly clear message. DO NOT FUCK UP OR WE WILL HUNT YOU DOWN. The fine wasn't all that steep for what MS can afford. It was another quick bump in the road. What it shows me is that the EU cannot be bought as easily as the US can.
"Imposing antitrust liability on the basis of product enhancements and imposing 'code removal' remedies may produce unintended consequences," Pate said. "Sound antitrust policy must avoid chilling innovation and competition even by 'dominant' companies. A contrary approach risks protecting competitors, not competition, in ways that may ultimately harm innovation and the consumers that benefit from it."
I really don't believe that MS purchasing companies and rolling their products it into their OS makes it any better for the consumers. In fact, I find that updates to software by smaller companies comes often and usually w/o large upgrade fees. To upgrade software once it is rolled into the OS requires you to usually pay for another version and may take years. Sure, WMP9 came out but at the cost of a very harsh EULA that had consequences that outweighed its benefits.
Had the DOJ followed through on it's case properly earlier, I don't think that the EU ruling would have been so harsh. The EU felt they had to send a message that someone was going to stand up.
Hell, if the DOJ had pursued real resolution there might not have been a case in the EU as Media Player might have been unbundled then.
Media Player is not the biggest anti-competitive piece they have anyway.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Ah, yes, sending the wrong message about antitrust enforcement policies. Like, when someone is found guilty of anticompetitive behavior while a monopoly - actually enforcing a penalty so they don't do it again?
Sorry - my bad, what was I thinking of.
I am somewhat concerned with the EU's choice to allow MS to "license" the API's. From my perspective, those API's should be fully published with no license behind them. MS should not have to reveal the code behind how they work, but the API's should be publicly available, and any updates and changes to those API's (say, though a patch or service pack) should be immediatly updated.
Just my $0.02. As always, it's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I don't think fining a business with 40 billion in the bank 500 million is harsh. I think the DoJ wanted them to get a slap on the wrist like always.
The decision states that "to the extent that any of this interface information might be protected by intellectual property in the European Economic Area, Microsoft would be entitled to reasonable remuneration".
Interfaces and formats aren't protected, which is why WINE and Samba can and have been using them for years. I remember Microsoft getting in a tiff over WINE using the same header files, but backed down.
This doesn't seem to grant anything to Microsoft that they didn't already have. No biggie.
May we never see th
It doesn't seem right to me that a royalty could be charged for using api's. The api's are there and can be used by any software. Isn't that the purpose of an OS? That is, to provide an interface layer between the programs and the hardware? The royalty is payed for by the consumer when they buy the OS.
Sounds like a mob boss doesn't it?
Sort of ominous, but not so threatening as to be considered out and out illegal.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Yeah, it may send the "wrong" message about trust enforcement priorities.
Their job is to enforce antitrust legislation. To the extent that they have not enforced it upon Microsoft (and numerous other conglomerates) they are not doing their job and are guilty of dereliction of duty.
Are they worried this "wrong message" might get people thinking about what should be done to aggressive monopolies, and get people talking about the fact that pork and kickbacks are now driving policy in the US under the current administration?
A fine that large ain't hay, even for the $loth.
Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
It's not about the fine. That's chump change, especially now that they probably don't have to pay the Eolas fees. They gained a huge huge advantage by being able to collect royalties. It'll be very easy to lock-out open source now.
From the beginning of time, those on top have worked hard and sometimes unfairly to protect their position. Despite all Microsoft's attempts Linux is gaining traction. Why do the movement's followers run towards to government to protect them when they are already finding a place in a free market? End the end you will end up regretting your deal with the government devil.
FFS, get out of Microsoft's pocket, Mr. U.S. Government. Get out of all corporate pockets. Neither the government nor corporations are held accountable for anything these days.
You would think so from the nonsense and rhetoric they are spouting off here.
I though the DOJ was a bunch of pansies when they backed down on Microsquash's penalties, now I see they must be stockholders.
Abuse me once, shame on you. Abuse me twice, I must be a investor.
Let us welcome our new world overlord, Bill Gates.
Capital punishment will become the "blue screen of death"
I think Europe overstepped in phunishing Microsoft. Probably courts will overrule, but this might force Microsoft to take more serious precautions to prevent Europe to take down Microsoft to promote its own Linux companies. If you noticed it really doesn't protect the competing companies, it doesn't make much of a difference for those companies. It is designed to set a precedent to freeze the features on Windows and make Linux more attractive. This might very well cause a trade war between Europe and USA.
This should demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt what kind of "justice" the DOJ believes in -- justice for the megacorps and their masters, but certainly not for average Americans and consumers who have been screwed left and right by the practices of ethically-challenged companies.
Hats off to Europe, for still having some moxie when it comes to taking on corporate power. We'll see how much longer that lasts.
---
http://thewired.blogs.com/teotwawki
The techno-mediated cultural conspiracy
this is the same protectionist EU which is absolutely drunk in love with GI (geographic indicators). this link is a bit over the top, but not too far: http://www.kc3.co.uk/~dt/protectionism.htm also: http://www.lymec.org/article.php?sid=117 Anybody who claims that the EU as a whole does not play machiavellian economic power politics with rulings and regulations is a fool. the EU's economic policies are the equivalent of the stereotype of the US's current military ones.. unilateral, self-serving, and ultimately deadly to innocents.
"It's deeply unfortunate that the EU is ignoring our lead of playfully mock-slapping Microsoft on the wrist to try to placate the unwashed masses and have instead chosen to not only fine them a whole days worth of dessert money but more importantly, create a legal precedent that could be invoked for fines that might actually hurt. It is my responsibility to announce that the ministers and employees of the EU are now considered to be enemy combatants. Special Forces Units are en route to collect and process them at sunny Guantanamo Bay."
Thanks to Ashcroft, the DoJ has lost all their credibility with me. If they say it's bad, well, it must be WONDERFUL.
I'd love to hear their positions on this, and a variety of other issues; can we get a DoJ interview?
Should we have broken up Ma Bell? Standard Oil? American Tobacco?
What's your position on mandatory prayer in school... how about illegal search and seizure--an idea that was ahead of its time?
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Play the way you're supposed to or get screwed.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
The size of the fine is peanuts to MS
Why do people keep saying this? It's not peanuts, not to Microsoft, not to anyone. It is a considerable fine.
wow can you run your posts through a spell-check first? my head hurts from reading that.
this sig intentionally left blank
Patty Murray's statement can be found at Murray Statement on EU Ruling Against Microsoft. Here are her contact information: http://murray.senate.gov/contact/
If Samba gets locked out of the Windows APIs, then I guess someone will have to come up with something better than Samba and make it work with Windows. Personally I think NFS is better, I guess we'll have to create a Windows NFS client that is as easy to use and implement as the Windows networking client.
Shouldn't be that hard considering all the geniuses we have here on Slashdot...Oh wait, nevermind.
Fining Microsoft sounds fine but it's the wrong tool for several reasons. First, it will force Microsoft to raise prices in other ways, so the fine is a hidden tax on consumers. Second, it does not change the underlying problem, which is that Microsoft have been allowed over the last decade to establish a position from which they can control prices in a market almost devoid of real competition. Third, the timing is poor, since the EU and US are on the edge of a trade war, and the US will certainly use this as an excuse to raise barriers on EU businesses. Lastly, Microsoft will appeal and this will take years, during which there will be much argument and hostility, with no positive changes to show for it.
I don't believe for a second that Microsoft will take this fine as a warning that merits a change in behaviour. They will simply spin it into an advantage, one way or another.
What needs to be done is establish and enforce international free-competition standards via the WTO. Then, if a US company is found to be breaking these, the problem can be addressed to the right place, namely the US government.
The EU could achieve much more in the arena of competition by correcting the injustices of the patent system (which turns it into a tool for market control by large businesses), and by mandating the use of OSS licenses in all software that is developed for the EU bodies themselves.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
This just gets to me... US judicial bodies, not a political party, a president, or something *commenting* on
Vote democrat, 5.85 billion people in the world would do so if they could!!!
Hardly surprising, giving R. Hewitt Pate was one of the men who imposed MS's wristslap by the DoJ. I wonder if there might be a conflict of interest here.
Note : Allowing your senior DoJ / government lawyers *cough, Ashcroft* to be in hock to major corporations might not be a very wise idea.
Only if you'll spellcheck before you post :)
Since SCO uses Samba, I wonder what their take is how this would affect their use of Samba? :)
I suppose MS will come knocking for their money back.
Hopefully they'll have to unbundle Internet Explorer, as well... After all, WMP is needed because there are still idiots who use the WMP format on the internet... What I want is a choice during installation: Do you want: a) Internet Explorer b) Mozilla FireFox 0.8 c) Mozilla 1.7 d) Netscape e) Opera Do you want: a) Windows Media Player b) QuickTime and iTunes c) RealPlayer d) All of the above
Now that would be great. I'm tired of seeing sooo much Visual* and MS* shit in jobs descriptions when I look for one. I'd really like if Europe was 100% Unixes :)
blah
I think that's just a LEETLE bit of an exaggeration of Microsoft's position.
The EU gets to look good in this decision (i.e. punishing a convicted monopolist company), gets money in the process, and gets to finally stick one to the U.S. after being called "Old Europe" and getting the shaft from the U.S. gov't.
"Imposing antitrust liability on the basis of product enhancements and imposing 'code removal' remedies may produce unintended consequences," Pate said. "Sound antitrust policy must avoid chilling innovation and competition even by 'dominant' companies. A contrary approach risks protecting competitors, not competition, in ways that may ultimately harm innovation and the consumers that benefit from it."
IMO , this is a very sticky subject. For instance - what if a TV manufacturer couldn't sell remotes? What if MacDonalds Couldn't sell french fries or sodas? I know that's a little silly but it is still similar.
On one hand M$ should be able to 'innovate' and add new features users want, on the other, they ARE a convicted monopoly and should not be allowed to use that position illegaly (unless of course I bought the stock at the right time). Microsoft, however, has become a victim of their own tactics.
By that I mean, that Microsoft as essentially muscled windows into what many consider is a 'staple' product (/. users excepted of course), now they may have to live with the fact that they may not forcibly bundle certain 'features' within the OS. An OS may go the route of a commodity (and in this day and age probably should, although I would probably be against any law that forces commodity pricing for windows), making MS compete in the open market, and on the basis of quality for all of Windows 'Features'.
Nevertheless, maybe we should have a definition of what an OS is, and what must be sold seperately.
It is sad to see that excellent decisions in other countries highlight the corruption of my US goverment. As a minnesotan, I say put Ventura in as president and we can eliminate corruption once and for all.
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
These articles deal with the EU (and WTO) having policies which may seem protectionist. Machievillian in a sense, but I do think Europe is much more concerned about the world as a whole that is the US. But even if full credit is given to the articles (I don't know enough about the subject to accept or reject them) this has no bearing on the trial against Microsoft -- they violated antitrust laws and have payed a penalty that is more that a mere wrist-slap.
From Groklaw :
.
Washington State's Senator Murray Asks Bush to "Engage" the EU
"'This ruling is yet another example of the EU assaulting a successful American industry and policies that support our economic growth,' said U.S. Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Microsoft's home state, Washington. . .
"Murray called on the Bush administration to 'engage' the EU in settling the case. 'The EU has now directly attacked the authority of the United States and our economy in general,' she said in a statement. 'American jobs and economic interests are threatened,' she said."
Um. "Engage"? She doesn't mean sending in troops or anything, does she?
Joke.
Wait a sec. Who assaulted who? Isn't the issue whether Microsoft broke the law over there? If they did, does she suggest it shouldn't matter, because they simultaneously give Americans jobs? The article points out that corporations that do sufficient business in Europe are subject to their laws, something they could avoid by not doing business there. They could also avoid consequences by not breaking any laws. I believe that would entail reading them
...of how government is tied to big busness regardless of political affiliation. In other words, the US system is corrupt. But then again, so is about every other nation on this planet.
Human nature never ceases to amaze me. Even under large orginizations called countries, corruption can and WILL take place.
Life is not for the lazy.
Why not an injunction instead of a fine? Removing less than a billion dollars from Microsoft's $50 billion in cash isn't going cause Microsoft to do anything differently. At most it will be a embarrassing publicity problem.
The EU's goal is to provide a competitive environment where other companies will have chance. This can only be done my making Microsoft compete fairly, which means forcing a change in their corporate behavior. This won't happen by confiscating 2% of their yearly revenues.
Microsoft has shown multiples time that it is unwilling to do business on a level playing field. So instead of a fine, how about immediately imposing an injunction on Microsoft making it illegal to sell their products in Europe until they comply with the EU's terms. I think this is the only way to get them to change their corporate behavior.
---- It won't be as bad as you fear or as good as you hope, but it will take twice as long as you plan.
what weed were these people smoking, huh?
Probably the same shit you need to cut back on, seeing as that was (almost) the only sentence in which you mispelled no words.
Damned if you don't.
I honestly can't see any way to win at this point, and it sucks. There is no way microsoft can be punished. even levelling record setting fines, microsoft still makes out good. This was supposed to be a punishment, not giving them any sort of leverage.
aw hell, I just don't care any,ore.
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
It is unfortunate... unfortunate that the DOJ didn't do thier jobs properly the first FOUR times, allowing this company to continue to behave in an anticompetitive and illegal manner with nothing more than a wink and a nudge.
Why can't I get away with abusive and immoral practices for 25 years, leading to nothing but becoming the richest man, and company, in the world? Am I not rich enough? Is my industry not new enough to be beyond the law?
While limited one of many particular aspects of Microsoft's behavior, I applaud the EU's ruling. If anything it was too limited in scope... hopefully other cases will follow. Let's see, there is DrDos, BeOS, Word compatibility, IE, per-cpu licensing, OS only licensing, No naked licensing...
The ______ Agenda
I have to agree that the punishment does not equal the crime. Since it is so heavy-handed I have to look at it like the EU wants to punish America, rather than Microsoft for its actions.
Any time an arbitrary amount is handed out like this, there is usually an ulterior motive.
1. the US will try to convince all the planet Europe still has WMP's
...
2. the US will invade us
3. WMP's won't be found in Europe
How much US goverment and politics are on Microsoft and other big corps money. It is not democracy anymore, officially. And no, for Microsoft it is not a harsh fine. It is what it really deserved. Billy, world doesn't belong to you, remember it!
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
America calls DOJ ruling unfortunate as well. Just becaue Microsoft got away with a slap on the wrist here doesn't mean that they should in other countries who apparently have clearly more stringent rules governing monopolists.
your' sis th ewrost post evre.
Well lets see. To recoup this fine, Microsoft would have to sell 3,424,581 xboxes, 3,065,000 copies of windows xp home edition, or 1,228,456 copies of office. Yep, doesn't sound like peanuts to me. I doubt microsoft nets much more than than in an entire year, maybe less.
My understanding of US government is somewhat lacking, but what does this have to do with the DoJ? MS broke EU rules, and the EU has made a decision based on that (right or wrong). It probably does have something to do with whatever department(s) handle foreign trade and relations, but what way is that the business of the DoJ?
$500 million is enormous to most companies, but it's 1/80th of the CASH that MS has in the bank. Not 1/80 of the company's total value, 1/80th of the amount that they can write a check for. Most companies would give far more than 1/80th of their cash if it meant that was the cost of maintaining a monopoly. From a cost/benefit standpoint, MS is getting off easy. That's why certain European countries have started making traffic fines a percentage of a person's income, rather than a flat rate for everyone. $150 will make me think twice about speeding, but it's the price of lunch for a millionaire. It's the same for MS. Let me ask you this. Let's say you lie, cheat, and defraud people in a completely illegal manner for years until you've become the richest man in the world. You have $40 billion in the bank. The fine for having done all of that is $500 million. Do you think that's excessive? You get to keep the other $39.5 BILLION that you extorted from people. In the world of individuals (as opposed to corporations), thieves, extorters, and embezzlers don't get to keep what they've stolen. But MS does. At least 79/80ths of it. Peanuts my friend, peanuts.
If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Completely and utterly pissed.
How much can a change in the political administration of a country influence its Justice ? In theory very little. The independence of these powers is essential to a democracy. In practice, the US DoJ changed from prosecuting a monopolist corporation (with B. Clinton) to: first letting go, and now publically defend, the same monopolist (with the current administration, which shall go unnamed ;-). Quite a change, quite a change ...
According to Assistant Attorney General Hewitt Pate, the fine 'may send the wrong message about antitrust enforcement priorities'.
You mean something like the EU pursues antitrust violators while the US doesn't?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
What it shows me is that the EU cannot be bought as easily as the US can.
A slightly more cynical wording: It shows that the EU cannot be bought by a US company as easily as the US DOJ/presidency can.
There is no blockade of Cuba. Only a law forbidding Americans from doing business with them. Other countries can and do trade with them.
First off, it is not a fine. No government ever accesses a FINE. They only tax. They just call it by different names.
Second, the remedies are good in regards to making them separate out the audio/video players. Though in context MS should have been congratulated if it impeded someone from getting REAL.
Back to the main point. Fines are taxes. Every consumer will being paying this "fine" for Microsoft. I don't care if you use Linux, Mac, or nothing at all. Your paying. Think of it as an embedded tax. It looks good in the press as an "evil corporation" is getting punished but tell me what corporation pays any tax? They don't, hence they don't pay fines either. You pay. Corporations make money, anything that reduces that profit is still paid for by the people bought the product or did business with someone who did.
The EU was on the right track but they may have given MS some advantages that it would have never had otherwise.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The example about Samba cant be right.. or the writer got the words wrong.
.Net contains alot of APIs tho.. so does Windows, so Mono and Wine would not be happy about this.
SMB is a protocol, not an API.
If the story teller is right that is.
Except being a monopoly isn't a crime. Call me a nitpicker, but too often, especially among the Slashdot crew, Big Evil Business is seen that way by virtue of its Bigness. The Bigness isn't the crime, forcing competitors out of the market typically is.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Big deal. Mr DOJ, while you worry about maybe shoulda coulda, the EU will focus on fact OK?
Now go wash yer mouth with oily ashes.
"/Dread"
"It seems that the DOJ thinks Europe was too hard on Microsoft in its anti-trust ruling.. According to Assistant Attorney General Hewitt Pate, the fine 'may send the wrong message about antitrust enforcement priorities'"
Spot who's Sweaty Ballmer's shower bitch.
"You bent over to pick up the money, Hewie. Now bend your as right back over again..."
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
The best part is "help Microsoft's rivals instead of promoting fair competition". As long as Microsoft is free to abuse their monopoly position, there will be no fair competition. Microsoft has shown NO tendency to compete fairly.
Kudos to EU for a wise decision. I really hope they stick to there guns and don't waffle and let BillG worm his way out of this.
I think that the DOJ is playing the nationality card here.
... any day now.
Every Western country has a few corporations which regularly piss all over various aspects of industry, we even have some here in Ireland, Eircom for example has been an obstacle to roll out of broadband, because it (and competition) jeopardised it's monopoly, eventually the likes of British Telecom got involved in the Irish telecoms market and Eircom's monopoly disappated.
Roll on BT I say, I'm a consumer, the cheaper my broadband the better.
Same with Microsoft, yes, there is a falling out between the US and EU over Iraq, basically because French oil interests didn't coincide with US oil interests... does this affect Microsoft and it's monopoly over the PC software industry?
It shouldn't, the facts are this monopoly is bad for the computer industry and while the DOJ in the US may have too many pro M$ lobbyists to constrain it, there are less of those in the EU.
Probably the fine does relate back to the Iraq war and tensions between the US and EU because of that, but, kids, in the real world, it doesn't matter what the reason is, or how it's done, M$'s stranglehold on technology and the suffocation it puts on it must be broken.
It's a shame the DOJ didn't endorse this ruling, since a monopoly hurts US consumers just as much as it hurts EU consumers.
Yes I use Linux and yes... I've read the manifesto of the communist party.
Ireland... instigating a Soviet invasion of US industry
The Bin Laden family has shares in Microsoft Corp. :) Especially now the EU has spoken its anti trust feelings, governments will closer investigate Open Source possibilities.
Well, thats beside the topic but let them license their API's; EU people are no fools ; they will even turn quicker to Free Software after all
In October 2003, the european union voted a strongly amended law whose initial aim was to allow and regulate software patents.
One of these amendments clearly stipulates a patent doesn't have to be respected when its infringment is needed to permit the connection between several systems. This protects samba, doesn't it ?
They've always had to work by reverse-engineering APIs. As long as they can continue to do that, they'll still thrive until the day nobody's running a microsoft server any more.
Free, published APIs would be nice, but nobody ever had them before. Develop alternatives! Nuff said.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Can we create a new OS (call it "ACOS" - Anonymous Coward Operating System) and it just happens be sheer coincidence to have the exact same API as Win 9x/2000/XP
Do we still have to pay royalty payments then?
Thomas "fping" Dz.
Are you from the MS marketing department?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
The European Commission's order for Microsoft Corp. to ship a version of Windows without the Windows Media Player could stifle innovation and help Microsoft's rivals instead of promoting fair competition, the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust chief said Wednesday.
Stifle innovation? How the hell does the DoJ come up with that one?
Help Microsoft's rivals? Isn't this the point? Microsoft has stifled innovation and held back competition for years, its rivals need help to overcome an anti-competitive monopoly!
Fair competition? You mean, like the way Microsoft gets to bundle all of its own middleware with Windows purely because it owns both the OS and the middleware? How fair is that? How does this help competition and innovation, where people usually stick with defaults as long as they work?
Why should removing a media player from Windows cause a problem? Like Microsoft said about its competitors, it's easy for the end user to download a media player. Or was that argument only viable when used by Microsoft in a bid to keep WMP part of the OS?
The U.S. continues to be active in its enforcement of Microsoft's compliance with the settlement and this work has resulted in substantial changes to Microsoft's business practices, according to Pate.
According to Pate? Yes, but some of us are not living in a dream world and can see that Microsoft is just as anti-competitive as ever, obviously plans to remain anti-competitive, and without the EUs input will have freedom to remain anti-competitive way into the future.
I think the EU was too lenient.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
This is the same mithuro.com Troll. MOD HIM DOWN!
Fuck you. If Microsoft doesn't want to deal with Europe, then they don't have to sell they crappy software there.
Firstly, the ruling is about MS being a monopolist and locking out competitor products from Windows by virtue of the very deep integration of WMP within Windows. This affects commercial products like RealPlayer and some OSS players that exist for or have been ported to Windows - nothing to do with Linux.
Secondly, this decision slows down MS's plans of dominating the market with licensed DRM software, for which WMP is the "Trojan Horse" transport. This aspect of the EU decision is what really hurts MS, especially if they are forced to license the APIs for those DRM formats.
However, DRM will affect Windows users first because it will be the codecs inside Windows that get altered or replaced, over a period of time, to stop the playing of "unlicensed" media. Linux users might end up not being able to play DRM media but they'll still be able to play the standard non-DRM formats like MP3, MPEG, etc.
It would be really nice to hear from a Windows user exactly how he or she feels about having his/her rights to fair use curtailed by Microsoft, the RIAA, etc. because I have never seen a Windows user ever respond to that question.
Windows users need to remember that a major reason a lot of people use Linux is because they intend to maintain their rights to have full and complete control over the software their machines run - this has always been a core philosophy of Unix that has been carried across into Linux by the Open Source movement.
Whether MS is fined or not, whether MS exists or not, is of no importance to the majority of the Linux community.
Unfortunately, it's the poor thinking by the Windows community that will allow DRM to get pushed through that will affect everyone's rights to fair use.
I've said this before and I'll say it again - if the EU decision holds back DRM in any way, then it's a good decision. End of story.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Instead of which, the little Commissars of Brussels royally screwed up by allowing MS to levy a fee for their interface specs. Which guarantees that Open Source software won't be able to use them.
Do you realize what it means?
Ii means that in one fell swoop, the Commissars kicked OSS competitiors out of MS pathway in the file and print server business. If it has been the result of bribery, I'd say "kudos to the bastards". But here, the incompetent Brussels morons apparently wanted to promote competition in this field. Unfortunately, as good carreer bureaucrats, they completely ignored the technical and market environment and used ideologically tainted views instead of reality as a decision basis. Whatever the intent, here is the result: Samba will be unable to develop new versions to follow MS changes without paying. Which they can't. So Samba will become incompatible and irrelevant. Linux will not be able to interface with future Windows 200x servers. The lock-out will be complete.
To paraphrase Linus, the destruction of Samba will be "a completely unintentional side effect". Nevertheless, that's what the Brussels Buffoons achieved. Which was to be expected, since after all, they are bureaucrats, not techies.
Heck, paying $600M for this result is a piffle. MS would gladly have payed ten times that to kill Samba, only people would have cried foul. But I'm sure Balmer is giggling right now: "Hey Bill, look at that, the Linux crowd is cheering 'cuz we have to pay the equivalent of 3 weeks of revenue!" - "Yes, Steve, little do the fools realize that we just completely won."
Once again, EU snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. And there was much rejoicing (in megacorp orations' board rooms).
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
did our DOJ start giving out it's opinion on cases in other countries? I don't recall the DOJ having 'bitching and moaning about cases in other countries' in their 'job' description. For most cases they wouldn't even have access to enough of the details to be able to comment.
Hell, even in this case they could, theoreticly not have enough details to comment. Lets say, maybe, someway, somehow, Microsoft actually did only deserve the slap on the wrist the DOJ handed to them. How does the DOJ know though that they wheren't doing extra illegal stuff in Europe that they wheren't doing here, or did extra illegal stuff since the DOJ case. I mean really, the DOJ doesn't have the right to be commenting on cases in other fucking countries.
Your figures are way off. First off, I seriously doubt they get 5 billion income each year from interest alone. Secondly, if they made 15-20 billion a year selling microsoft office,this means by now they should have hundreds of billions of dollars in the bank (considering this so called >10% annual interest rate their bank is giving them).
Ive just run it through a spell checker, didnt make much sense even then.
I think he's saying:
The ruling ish irrelevant because the MicroSsoft eshMB APIsh are not documented. Evurp'n when they are, the MicroShoft eshMB APIsh achually work differently than the documentation shuggesgsh, hic.
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
"Slashdot calls DOJ Microsoft Decision Unfortunate"
I take that "unfortunate" means "darn EU competition freaks -- driving my M$ stock down so I can't retire to a house larger than 50 rooms" after we worked so hard to get them off the hook in the US.
The punishment does not equal the crime beacuse it probably isn't enough money. Punishment is only any good if it hurts! This won't hurt M$.
It's not that the Microsoft guys are bad people. They're just doing what comes naturally to businessmen: they're trying to beat the competitors however they can and make the most money they can. The fact of being so amazingly successful is bound to be somewhat corrupting. Remember: power corrupts, and in the computing world, M$ are very powerful!
This is why it is necessary to correct the tendencies of the likes of M$. They must not be allowed to bully the smaller guys out of the market. This is not good for the consumer.
So, don't take it as an insult to America. Just take it that our justice is not afraid of big business.
Here's the place to look:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MSFT&annual
You can see their revenue is about $32B/year, and their net profits is close to $10B/year.
So, the other numbers are off, but the effect is 2 weeks of profit for microsoft. Peanuts.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I'll rub the slashdot crowd the wrong way, but I EXPECT my OS to have rich multimedia abilities these days, and I wouldn't like to have Real on it just because Real decides they can force themselves upon me. Who do you think is stirring the shit? That's right, Real. I don't see why any of the European countries would oppose the decision. $100M is a nice chunk of cash, nobody will decline to participate. Next time they decide they need cash they'll say that DirectX shouldn't be there. In 10 years they'll only allow MS to ship bare kernel.
In my opinion what MS offered them was reasonable - they offered to include competing media players alongside with WMP. For some reason that wasn't enough, and EC decided to screw the innocent consumer by robbing him of convenience of having the best media player on the planet come for free with his Windows purchase, and go through the chores of installing it from the internet.
If things go well for Real, EC may decide to not only prohibit the distribution of WMP but also force MS to include that POS Real software. It's like forcing Coca Cola to sell _only_ Pepsi products from their vending machines.
Tell that to Volkswagen ....
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Indeed, MS products have a superior number of bugs, a superior rate of crashes per unit of time and a superior use of HD space.
Unfortunately Linux, and *nix in general, appears to have placed importance on an SMB network, the only alternatives such as NFS are still orientated around networking computers rather than users.
OSS should present and push a simple and credible alternative standard for user orientated networking, get it standardised, and evangelize to the user community the advantages of not having a networked locked into proprietry standards (as if those compelled to upgrade thier NT servers are not allready aware!). MS should be forced to comply by user demand.
BTW, interesting that one of the few viable alternatives to SMB (as far as integrating on windows is concerned) is Novells stuff, I wonder what thier approach to the problem will be?
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
in other words he doesn't want to loose his job.
he still want microsoft's money so he has to look good in the press.
I am sure he has some stock too that is plunging.
I am embarrassed to be an american and I can't wait till the next election to get these corporate yes men out of power.
Bush and his pussy Judges in DOJ ?
Yes I am flaming.. I am angry and disappointed.
Isn't there all over the world laws that allow to study protocoles and write softwares required to inter-operate ? If I remember well even the DMCA in the US and the DMCA-like laws in the EU allow such things.
How can you prevent someone from writing the software required to use the hard-disks on a GNU/Linux box from a Windows machine ? Then, how can you ask for money for that ?
--
Go Debian!!!
So the only way to punish a corporation is what?
Fine the directors?
Imprison the directors?
Close the company down (revoke charter)?
Anybody who claims that the EU as a whole does not play machiavellian economic power politics with rulings and regulations is a fool. the EU's economic policies are the equivalent of the stereotype of the US's current military ones.. unilateral, self-serving, and ultimately deadly to innocents.
You're oversimplifying things. The EU is protectionistic in trade issues.
And I agree that is bad.
But the US is equally protectionistic, as are most western nations outside of the EU, like Norway and Japan.
So, it's not fair to condemn the EU's trade regulations in their entiety just because they are protectionistic. Also, there is quite a bit of criticism and controversy over this within the EU.
Contrast that to the situation in the USA, where the Bush administration is no less protectionistic than the EU. (Imposing tariffs on pig-iron imports, for example)
Unfortunately, there is little opposition to this in the USA, unlike Clinton, Kerry hasn't been particularily enthusiastic over free-trade either.
MS is also engaging in blatant hypocrisy. On one hand, they argued that since they had already had an anti-trust case in the US which they lost that the EU had no reason or right to extend the penalties beyond what was already done. They were already and ONLY bound by the US decision. On the other hand, after losing (or suffering a setback in) the Lindows case in the US (IIRC) they are now jurisdiction shopping across the globe because the US courts did not rule in their favor. Go figure...
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
What are they loosing? Loosening their hold on the market? Loosing the ropes on the captives? Or did you mean losing?
Methinks they protest too loudly! The only reason Microsoft is complaining so loudly is to look as though they have been punished. Often, a person who has been punished will act as if they received a great deal more than they actually did when they know that they should have received harsher punishment. Microsoft would probably be glad to pay the current fine if it would end their anti-trust problems permanently. If MS keeps getting the governments to enfore their monopoly we are all in trouble.
Additionally from some other articles on the EU/MS debacle, MS seems to think that their "IP" rights trump all law. Their power has become such that they feel they are beyond the reach of law.
Just to let off steam. What will it be like in 10-20 years when heart pacemakers are based on an MS OS. Will their EULA exclued failure of the device? Will untimely deaths due to the BSOD status (though there is no screen)just be swept under the carpet? If Microsoft has their way, which in the end I think they will buy from our governments the world over, we will all be at their mercy. They are as insidious as the worst governments.
NUKE REDMOND!(I mean this figuratively. You can say things like that in business; MS does. You know -- "knife the baby","cut off their air supply","cut them off at the knees".)
The above editorializing and rant were brought to you by all of the letters in the English alphabet, some numbers, and a few punctuation marks.
M$ can increase products prices - and thus tax customers - to cover the fine _only_ if they do not have competition.
With competition, they are not able to do it, otherwise competitor's products become more attractive.
The EU ruling has the goal of keeping competition alive - indiretly making this fine a real fine, not a tax.
Double plus good double speak there.
bring it on! --- JFK
So let me get this straight:
1. Microsoft has to pay pocket cash to pay the fine.
2. Microsoft can't bundle Windows Media Player.
3. Microsoft can now lock out all open-source projects trying to attain API compatibility. Good-bye WINE, Samba, et al.
Forgive me, but any EU decision which ends up doing significant damage to the free software movement and does minimal damage to Microsoft can't really be considered a "win" for the consumer.
That's not to mention that, compared to the DoJ ruling, this does NOTHING to reign in their monopolist tendencies. If the DoJ was a slap on the wrist, this was a loving pat on the rump. At least the DoJ got Microsoft to stop abusing OEMs who tried to give choice - all the EU ruling did was protect Real and get some money from a US corporation. If this was a big win for the EU, I can only imagine what a big defeat would be.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
In "The Age" article at http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/25/10799 39782633.html
the former head of antitrust in the DOJ under Clinton disagrees with the current head of antitrust.
"But Douglas Melamed, chief of the DoJ's antitrust division in the Clinton administration, said the EU's order made perfect sense.
"The commission did nothing that strikes me as outrageous or foolish," he said. The fine was appropriate; a good deterrent that "enables you to focus yourself on deterring wrongful conduct rather than trying to regulate it after you find it.""
The opposing reactions of the two heads of antitrust lends strong credence to the theory that Bush's election did lead to a dramatic change in the DOJ antitrust operations and was the reason why stronger action against MS was dropped.
Also, Senate Republican leader Bill Frist has hinted at sanctions and a trade war with the EU over Microsoft. According to the article in "The Age" he is quoted as saying:
"I fear that the US and the EU are heading towards a new trade war and that the commission's ruling against Microsoft is the first shot." and
"If the US Government does not make a clear and strong objection to the EU actions, we will lose influence and credibility for years to come, to the detriment of the US economy and US consumers,"
So I guess now support for MS has become intertwined with patriotism and national pride. Yay. I guess for all your Americans out there, remember, according to your beloved Republican Senate leader, the reputation of the US as a nation is now intertwined with that of MS...
...is a union to stand up for them... oh, wait...
Very smart, leave what is soon to be an economy of about 500 million people accounting for over a third of thier business. I for one wouldn't mind if they did go, I don't think DC++ would have trouble importing their latest releases.
Until we see film footage of Saddam Gates being yanked out of his spider hole the nightmare will not be over.
The DOJ is so far up GW's ass they dont even need to use their own eyes.
Will some one please think beofre they mouth oiff?
Considering I only have a vague sense of what you were trying to say, I find some delightful irony in this last bit...
``The European Commission's order for Microsoft Corp. to ship a version of Windows without the Windows Media Player could stifle innovation and help Microsoft's rivals instead of promoting fair competition, the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust chief said Wednesday.''
Well, yes and no. Disallowing MicroSoft from bundling their apps with the OS gives competing OS and application vendors a competitive advantage. However, this _promotes_ rather than stifles competition, because, as it stands, MicroSoft pulls all the strings. I agree that assymetric measures like this should be avoided, but the system is out of balance and won't function properly until we rebalance it somehow.
I see it as a punishment; in principle, you are allowed to bundle anything with anything you please, but if you use bundling as a weapon to push competitors out of the market, the court can forbid it.
Earlier, I objected that bundling is a service to the consumer and should therefore not be limited, but I realize there is a solution: if MicroSoft can't bundle, a third party still can. They could then select the things to bundle from every product on the market, and given enough bundlers, every software gets a fair chance; at least, theoretically.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
...and wait how this plays out in court. Mario Monti lost the three last major cases, so it's doubtful if this decision is gonna stand.
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
You have got to hand it to Gates+Balmer they made a great purchase, 600mil for the right to keep anyone from connecting to their software without paying a tax... good one. FSCKing bastardos. Now we know the EU can be bought off... guess we need to keep an eye on what the other hand is doing...
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
First off, it is not a fine. No government ever accesses a FINE. They only tax. They just call it by different names.
I don't think this is entirely accurate. Fines are levied as punishment against individuals or corporations as a result of legal proceedings. Taxes are levied against groups or individuals (supposedly) equally. Further, taxes are enacted by legislatures. Fines are typically levied by the judiciary or, in the case of most modern governments, bureaucratic agencies such as the FTC or the FCC.
Defining taxes as "governments requiring moneys be delivered to them" is in my mind overly simplistic and unfortunately confuses the situation. Specicifity in terms is almost always beneficial.
Every consumer will being paying this "fine" for Microsoft. I don't care if you use Linux, Mac, or nothing at all. Your paying. Think of it as an embedded tax.
This, too, is inaccurate. These moneys are going from Microsoft's assets into the EU's treasury. How this affects me -- an American Mac user -- you fail to say. You assert it is true, but do not say how. I have not used a Microsoft product in many years, and therefore the success or failure of their business does not affect me, except in perhaps a "Butterfly Effect" kind of way. If, as a result of this, Microsoft raises the prices of Windows or Office, I and those like me will be unaffected.
In any event, if Microsoft is indeed guilty, as they seem to be, then justice requires that punishments be levied. The EU did the right thing here. You seem to oppose government actions such as this in toto, and I believe that to be a mistake. Governments can and should levy puntative fines against corporations that do not play by the rules set up by those same governmetns. To do otherwise would make the law meaningless.
That is an invalid analogy. A more proper analogy is "Being a soldier means as much about loving war as being a match does about loving fire." Firefighters "fight" wars in order to put them out. Soldiers are tools used to implement war, just as a match is to fire.
...is a pickup truck and some domestic chemicals.
Where does this $600+ million go?
:-)
who gets it?
Competitors like SuSE Linux?
Microsoft customers?
Goverment pork?
slashdot user brad3378?
The EU essentially threw brear rabbit into the briar patch.
I accept the EU's decision on not being allowed to include applications with an installation if it's a binding precedent. Of course, this also means that all Linux distro's must quit bundling apps like media players, games, cd burning software, mail clients, word processing etc.
Say I wrote a commercial text editor, could I sue Redhat, Suse, Mandrake etc. to force them to remove Emacs, Pico, vi etc from their distro's ?
It might not be so bad. Even if Samba is toast (which would suck largely), perhaps those who have invest heavily in Linux infrastructure will promote development of a free Windows network protocol that can work effectively with CUPS, NFS, and LDAP. I've often thought that making Linux servers bend over for Windows clients as backwards. Hell, lets see what Novell can bring to the party with their years of similar work with Netware. Even if Samba has been shut out in the EU, Linux has not.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
That is just plain wrong.
Samba team managed to remain interoperable through, what, Win 3.11 even, definitly Windows 95, 98, 98SE, ME, and NT 3.5, 2k, and XP series, without any acess to documentation, beyond what was freely available.
On what basis does making Microsoft make more information available to some other people make it more difficult for the Samba team to continue to do what they do, for future versions of Windows?
In short, Samba exists without Microsoft assistance. Forcing Microsoft to help a third party doesn't make it more difficult for Samba, at all.
(As an aside, given that the EU was only looking at Media players, I think that the API's will only be for Media playing interfaces - thus I don't think that, say, the printing subsystem, will bo covered in all this.)
Oh, and Samba doesn't _use_ any Windows API's. It uses the SMB protocol, and I've not seen anyone claim that Microsoft's protocols will have to be opened - the equivelent here would be the protocols that cover WMP to server negotiations, I think.
So, unless you want to point me to something I must have missed, I can't agree with you.
Even though MS, sitting on US$6e10 cash can easily afford the penalty, I'd say to the EU:
[I'm a US citizen and I don't think the EU decision is at all out of line. The US DOJ action does not seemed to have increased Microsoft's competition on the Windows desktop or innovation in general by one iota. But we're still getting charged.]
"Provided by the management for your protection."
hmm. If the samba people don't get access to the technical documents, then they'll just do exactly what they've been doing all along - reverse engineer.
How is this going to affect samba team in a negative way?
Here's a thought: try selling software and those royalties wouldn't be so bad.
Pure cruft...why can't sheeple think beyond what everyone else is barking?!?
Anyhow, there's a flip side to this scenario:
One of the big bad boys pushing Linux will by the API specs and push the concerned projects ahead. All because it suites their business needs and will make them money.
And. Even if this doesn't happen, nothing has changed in terms of the old clean room approach that seems to have been pretty successful so far.
Look at the effective encouragement for diesel cars -protects the french car industry against the japanese.
Look at the Common Agricultural Policy, that preserves rural peasant life at the expense of the rest of the world.
The EU is pretty blatantly self-serving at times. But it has embraced the Kyoto agreement, and it is not afraid of slapping around companies that overstep the mark. And it monitors those decisions pretty well.
Maybe it is because there is no president; to buy the EU you have to subvert a majority of countries, and without a big MS presence, none of them can be swayed by the MS creates Jobs story.
It won't affect the Samba team but when MS braces it's monopoly to standardize a completely different file sharing API it will provide an avenue to sue the crap out of anyone that reverse engineers the new protocol because they will not have properly paid for the API specs.
Think about the DeCSS guy. He didn't use the actual code published in the patents but simply reversed engineered the "API" of DeCSS. Under this new EU ruling he wouldn't be guilty of infringing on DVD encryption but rather guilty of making use of something that wasn't properly licensed.
Perhaps that isn't a perfect example but, if you're thinking with a big corporate mentality, it's easy enough to see how this can be used to quash all competition.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Even if it had something Bush-special about it, I wouldn't be surprised if supporting Microsoft actually CAUSED the disaffected-youth quasi-techie population to vote against Bush.
Something which is worse than the whole mess to begin with.
After all, as everyone should know - jabbing a bull with a fork just gets you crushed.
It should make it a lot harder for Samba's developers to operate under the presumption that they haven't seen the APIs, maybe.
I already have DRM on my P800. Software vendors tie their applications to the IMEI number of the phone. I've used hardware keyed DRM software on Sun boxen since the early '90s. DRM is something that's here and here to stay.
I'd rather see an open, standardized, DRM solution rather than one foisted on us by a monolopistic gatekeeper that I don't trust, but DRM is going to be an essential part of the electronic future.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
I've said it before. It's been modded as flamebait before. I'll say it again and it's not a flame.
Anti-trust is DEAD under this administration. It wasn't kicking so strong under Clinton either, but it was alive. Remember the MS suit that was tossed out as soon as the Bush team took office?
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Some one with deep pockets decides to weigh in and test the validity of Microsoft's arrangement - they end up in court (which is the intent all along), and Microsoft is forced to open up their APIs. It seems like getting anywhere with Microsoft is like a square dance - a step to the right, a step to the left, swing your partner to and fro, but all the while, you're moving closer and closer to the edge. I am confident that Microsoft's arrogance will eventually lead them close enough that they'll stumble and go right over.
In a number of ways ...
..
... the governor wants them to pay it back .. the governor is unseated .. new governor accepts 1 cent on the dollar.
1) appointing new members to the Supreme Court that will "interpret" laws their way..
2) doing "deals"
a: The Court came up with some punishments for Microsoft, the administration changed, MS was let off with only a wrist-slap.
b: An energy company charges tens of millions of dollars for energy not delivered
2) The administration can decide to take no action against people or companies whom most of the public think broke the law..
The admin can also change legislation to remove company's actions from list of crimes.
its easy
Paul
www.opencouncil.org
Open
Update to the related story: Microsoft will now, in fact, be required to pay the entire fine in the form of peanuts... Planters, specifically.
Bill Gates, Chairman of Microsoft, was quoted as saying that "[he] and high level EU officials are now in negotiations to determine exactly the kind of peanuts that [they] have to use." Adding, "Personally, I like the 'spicy peanuts', but being very close to the famed Italian phrase 'Thats a spicy meatball' may have trademark implications. Our lawyers are working on that."
Steve Ballmer, the President of the world's largest monopoly has indicated his preference for honey roasted peanuts since "spicy peanuts just wreck me."
More to come on this breaking story.
> 'American jobs ...' she said."
Sure. Just imagine all the jobs that would be created if Microsoft was simply deleted from the Universe, tommorow.
"We've determined Standard Oil to be a monopoly. However, because so many companies depend on oil, we shouldn't disrupt the industry"
"We've determined Ma Bell to be a monopoly. However, because so many companies depend on phones, we shouldn't disrupt the industry"
"Don't worry, we've asked the monopoly to assign top people to oversee their practices. Who? Top people I tell ya!"
It might not affect the "Samba Team", but it probably could affect Samba USERS.
In fact, I think some NAS vendors that use Samba already pay MS their kickback. One could seem Microsoft sending a bill to corporations for using Samba.
Senate bid against a dead man. they also allowed their lobbyist, Ralph Reed to work for the bush selection in 2000. Reed is now head of the Georgia GOP. He was also an Employee of Enron.
bush was a Mac user, but when MS started giving money and use of their employees, he switched to a Wintel machine.
photosMy Photostream
According to EU :
"To the extent that any of this interface information might be protected by intellectual property in the European Economic Area(6), Microsoft would be entitled to reasonable ["and non-discriminatory"] remuneration."
(The word "non-discriminatory" is absent in the english translation, but present in other languages). So according to this Microsoft has not right to sell their API specification too much expensive.
If they charge too much for their network API, Samba people should be able to attack microsoft because the price is not reasonable and is discriminating against open source project.
Also about the WMP-free version : "However, Microsoft must refrain from using any commercial, technological or contractual terms that would have the effect of rendering the unbundled version of Windows less attractive or performing. In particular, it must not give PC manufacturers a discount conditional on their buying Windows together with WMP." .
so Microsoft cannot sell WMP-free only 2$ cheaper than other versions.
And Microsoft cannot force websites to put content in WMV format only, because that will make WMP version more attractiv than the WMP-free version
I don't understand the problems DOJ is complaining about
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
AAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh
:)
HELP!!!
The Grammer police are after me!
FYI, it was meant to be a play on words. The idea was that MS would be loosening it's monopolistic hold, and also losing the case.
And for the other Grammer Policeman, who commented about this showing the US having poorer schools, I agree. I'm Canadian, and the fact that it was an airplane joke, shows the poster (whom I assume to be from a US institution) is not up to the Canadian level of education.
(Just joking again...)
EU judgement:
Ok, so the DoJ doesn't like the way things went down. Neither do I, perhaps for differant reasons.
I think that in fining MS and then telling them to release the API's, with the ability to charge for said access to the API's, the EU did nothing. Thats right, they made a lot of noise, but in the end they did nothing. Unless you consider forcing MS to open a new market and give some of the profit to the EU courts as something to be proud of.
Consider: EU court system charges MS a fine. Why does the EU government get this money? Was MS competing with the EU government? Does anybody believe the majority of this money will end up in the hands of the companies MS was charged with pushing out of the market? So free check for the EU courts. Next the EU courts tell MS that they have to allow others to use their API's, but MS is allowed to charge a royalty. In other words, thanks for the cash, here's a slap on the wrist and a way to make the money back.
So in the end, the companies that MS has forced out of business are still out of business, the API's they wouldn't release before are now released, but still unavailable to those that cannot afford them, and...?
Maybe next time they will consider not bribing themselves and actually making a decision that will actually help the situation, rather than simply making it look as if they had.
Taking money away from MS won't do a thing towards getting them to compete equally. Opening closed standards and imposing financial monitoring would only be a start to forcing free competition, but it would go a lot further than forcing MS to sell access to (some of) the API's.
In the end I think the EU courts basically took a bribe to look the other way. Except where they had the power to really do somehting ere, they were actually the ones that offered and received the bribe, they just made sure the money was coming out of someone elses pocket.
Amount of Fine:As to the arguments about the amount of the fine, it doesn't matter to MS as long as the amount doesn't affect operating costs. The money will be made back simply by not offering as many special deals on software. MS doesn't even have to raise the retail prices, just the wholesale ones (ie, the real price we pay everywhere but Amazon and BestBuy who carge retail and tell us we're getting a deal).
OSS:
No effect. Samba (as an example) hasn't needed the API's this long, and as far as I know they really don't need the Media Player API's. Just a guess.
Whee signature.
You're correct, BiggerIsBetter, but keep in mind that most companies have a lot of Windows server. They see the cost going up, as well as security and reliability problems, so they want to deploy Linux without too much trouble. That's where Samba comes in. Samba allows drop-in replacement of Windows servers. It represents one of the main Linux opportunities that open the door to OSS in corporate and small business shops. Remove Samba and all these Windows shops are effectively trapped into MS forever.
Do you see why Samba is so important and why removing its threat is such a victory for MS?
Optimistic people think that Samba will continue reverse engineering new MS protocols. But the conjunction of patented protocols and for-pay-only specs makes this a shaky proposal from a legal perspective. I doubt Samba can afford long, protracted legal fights. So this stupid EU ruling might well be the weapon that will keep future versions of Samba from being compatible with new Windows protocols.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
you're thinking perhaps of C? in which case they should really shorten up the name, because "Identrifiers with external links may be more restricted; implementations may make as few as the first six characters significant." (K+R, appendix A2.3)
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
EU says that they have to sell this APIs at a reasonnable and non discriminatoring price.
Selling it too high in order to kill Samba is definitly a non-reasonnable and discriminatoring price
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
......the "require WMP" part. .dll restores it immediately. (not very difficult to bypass, but still irritating)
I urge anyone that has installed WMP 9 to try deleting/renaming the executable in the player's main directory. I wanted to register MPC for use with IE without going trough the registry and my initial idea was to rename the original executable. Well, guess what, a nice little
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
The DOJ is just jealous because they couldn't land such a successful attack on Microsoft.
They should have one coming up though! With Microsoft's intentions on buying AOL... they had better get in the way. If not, I think they should reconsider letting Oracle buy PeopleSoft.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
The behavior of the US politicians defending MS reminds me of a Dave Barry joke about the Keating Five. "They are known collectively as the `Keating Five' because it would be a serious violation of the libel laws to call them `prostitutes with speechwriters.'"
"If there was any hint of the MS leaked code in SAMBA"
The API is not code. The API is the interface. Microsoft does not need to claim that there is Microsoft *code* in SAMBA to collect the fee. They just need to claim that someone in SAMBA *looked* at the API specification and used it to develop the code without paying. Further, this does not need to be true. If there is some supporting evidence (for example, a Microsoft employee emailed SAMBA the API), then it might be enough to stop distribution of SAMBA and would certainly be enough to tie it up in court. If the developers are spending all their time in court rather than coding, they've effectively killed the project.
This is a problem with licensing an API. By its very nature, it's a virtual product. There is nothing to stop someone from illegally copying it and distributing it to one or more SAMBA developers. Further, there is no way to tell if someone came up with a particular protocol via observation or by reading a copy of the API.
IANAL, but it's also possible that they could claim that the decision gives them the right to collect fees based on the information that SAMBA derives from *observation* of the functionality (no looking at the API/code necessary) or by making up their own method that happens to be the same. That's how patents work. If I patent a method and you develop the same method entirely separately, you still have to pay me royalties. It doesn't matter that you did not rely on my work in any way. The patent protects me from independent development as well as from copying.
about the whole MS vs EU case...
Does anyone think that the aggressive prosecution and result of this case was partly influenced by anti-American sentiment? It's a great opportunity to stick it to one of the USA's biggest and baddest corporations. I'm not trying to be cynical...however I can't help but feel I am correct in this regard. Why, I'd stake bgate's life on it!
Translation: "Shit, you guys are making us look bad. Stop it!"
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Who cares what the US DOJ thinks? It has no power in Europe. It's certainly entitled to its opinion (afterall we Europeans frequently comment on American "justice"). In fact I think its nice to have things this way around for a change!
I believe that the Samba team is concerned with patent enforcement.
I remember an article in the past regarding some type of password hashing technique where Microsoft discretely reminded a Samba developer that the Samba code was treading on a Microsoft patent.
The EU action gets the patent engine rolling.
In other words, from an optimistic point of view, I would interpret that as saying that the EC are compulsorarily public-domaining (like copmulsory purchasing) MS's exclusive intellectual exploitation rights (what sort of rights are we talking -- patents mainly I assume?).
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
I am truly troubled these statements of some US politicians and officials.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
"may send the wrong message about antitrust enforcement priorities"
Yeah that message is don't do it or were going to bust your ass! I think their message is right on the money.
TruePunk | Games
That's interesting as it's what most of the World said when Bush was elected.
no they are not ripping anyone off
I guess it's easier to get "grants" from Microsoft in the form of fines, than it is to issue bonds.
'mmmmmmmmm.... forbidden donut'
Look at the political field in europe and you will see that to us the democrats are extreme right wing. Anti-gay marriage being the most obvious at the moment.
The state has no business telling people how to life and a religion should only be allowed to advise its own followers on how to behave as long as it doesn't violate others rights. I can't quite see how banning people from saying "I choose this person as my partner for life" fits in with this.
Strangly enough isn't it the republican Arnold Schwarzenegger who is for equal rights?
No both democrats and republicans are bought and sold. Just look at the sock puppets for the RIAA/MPAAfia.
Also look at a recent story in france where a EU sock puppet is trying to pull the same stunt.
The only saving grace in europe is that we are so fucking huge and have so many parties. We got them all, nazi to communist. Hippies to bankers. 99% of the time they are fighting each other and doing absolutly nothing. This is goverment at its best. If something is worth doing by goverment it is worth 10 yrs of fighting. Good things are worth waiting for. Bad things need a lot of time to be wiped out.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I mean seriously... this is the EU ruling on MS violating european law. What the DOJ really needs to do is STFU
The spelling police need to question you regarding your mispelling of the word "grammar."
You have 24 hours to turn yourself in, then we come in hot with dictionaries open in both hands.
Uh, you have windows file protection on, and it's doing exactly what it's told to do, restore a given set of OS files. If you installed an app that downgrade MSVCRT.DLL to an old version the same OS service would have replaced it with the correct version from the dllcache directory, this way stupid installers are less likely to break critical OS components. Origionally MS was going to rework DLL registration so that when an app did something like this it would place the DLL into a hidden system subdirectory under the app's install path and whenever the app was launched it would be given its own private DLL namespace with the versions of the DLL's which it installed. For some reason this was dropped (probably too difficult to make work correctly, consistently).
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Why does the DOJ need to make any comment on this issue? It seems like they are only doing this to show support for MS. I would think that with the DOJ currently in an oversight role with regards to MS it should refrain from making any comment at all on what its counter part in the EU does to MS. Doesn't give me a lot of confidence that new stateside abuses will be policed very well.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
And where is the DOJ, their settlement IIRC was supposed to include publishing the APIs (BTW many years after the DRDOS case outlawed the practice of secret APIs which still continues).
These scumbags have set themselves up as being above all democratically elected (or in the case of Dubya, non-elected) authority worldwide. They must be stopped. Stupidity, ignorance and incompetence by the DOJ and the EU is not what is required, nor is the imposition of a fine so small that it will be paid from the petty cash, or the slush fund to bribe corrupt US senators, without anyone even noticing.
It is time that someone somewhere dealt properly with this global manace.
You can say it's the DOJs fault, but it should be clarified that it is the DOJ of the Bush administration. The case, as it was brought by the DOJ under the Clinton administration, had more teeth--hell, consider that it was even brought up at all, do you really think the current Attorney General would have started this case?--and indeed even the original proposed remedy by Judge Jackson was to split MS up into parts. (Whether that actually was a good idea is another matter entirely).
Also quote your backslashes, or they're not backslashes for long.
The only engagement here, is how Patty Murray engages the responsibility of the WHOLE US in this case, by her commenting on how Microsoft's criminal behaviour in the EU profits the economy of the US and creates jobs there.
Very wise indeed. *clap* *clap*
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Its a bit of "we can attack our brother but no one else had better talk smack about him".
Normal response...not unexpected.
Right. But Arab dictators are another story...
Smarter people have speculated on this but it would make a lot of sense to see "Novell/GNU/Linux/Window Manager" come out of this.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Now comes the EU with bite number three: tackling the very concerns that were first raised by the Justice Department, then later raised and rejected after separate hearings involving the non-settling states. Still, the EU ploughs ahead -- second-guessing and overriding the judgment of both the judicial and executive branches of the US government in a matter that concerns management decisions made in the US by a US company. What is worse, the entire process has been instigated by US-based competitors that have failed repeatedly within the American legal system to accomplish what they have been inept at accomplishing within the global marketplace.
I prefer:
for i in *.jpeg; do mv "${i}" "${i/%.jpeg/.jpg}"; done
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Or are you taking the piss? Nah, you have to be taking the piss. That just has to be a troll, but it's a bloody good one. Impossible not to comment on.
Kudos. Excellent troll.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Dont give them ideas!
emt 377 emt 4
There is always the good old FTP; which actually works via Internet Explorer as if it was folder based.
As for Linux boxes accessing Windows... Hmm... why would they ever need to? (I run a Linux network, with a few windows boxes, and I can't imagine a situation where a Linux box would need anything from a Windows box).
the best feature of washington-captured systems and institutions is that once the are bought off, they STAY bought off.
and the DOJ was bought off on the "settlement."
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The sad thing is that before they reach that stage they are continuing to inflict serious damage on the world economy, destroy productivity, and wipe out honourable and legitimate competitors, and meanwhile some of us at work are forced to use their counterproductive trash.
I don't know which will start the slide into oblivion, zero uptake of Longhorn (because it will completely break compatability of almost everything, since the API set is cut down to about 20%, still far too bloated), or massive and expensive damage to a large and influential customer as a result of one of their security holes, or maybe something else entirely. The fact is that they are walking a tightrope, and gravity only pulls downwards....
But it is up to the informed public. As I say about the security hole known as Outlook (Lookout), no-one has to use it, ever. Same with their other trash products. It may well be that the people who specify business software are generally stupid, but I doubt that they all are, and some with embarassing balance sheets (or even some with excellent balance sheets who know they could do even better) will start to trim the expenditure by going to Linux/BSD (I hope they choose both, diversity is a good thing) and OpenOffice.org. They will not be disappointed, word will eventually get round in the business community.
M$ have already as good as lost a number of countries, when they lose businesses who are household names, the slide will accelerate.
It all comes down to the well-known fact that you can't fool all of the people all of the time..
The problem is that bash (and thus the bash array construct) isn't available everywhere. I do consulting work on various System V-ish Unices where I have at best an old version of tcsh, and more likely just plain old sh. And where I'm not permitted to install bash (or any other software), even if it's from a Sunsoft package (for instance). You think doing without arrays is a pain - try working all day with no command-line editing beyond the terminal driver. ;)
;).
There are less keystrokes in the array'd version, but knowing it will work anywhere makes typing the traditional version actually faster - at least for me. Even with all the nested quoting (second nature by now
In any event you properly quoted the variables in your version, which was the main point.
So you get:
Italian style hard cheese.
Sparkling white wine.
Cornish style pasties.
Which is fair enough. The manufacturers in these regions are justifiably famous for their products and have spent centuries collectively developing their quality and reputation to the point where they are famous the world over.
You want to make a cheap knockoff and hijack that reputation? Bugger off and build your own name/reputation.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
A slightly more cynical wording: It shows that the EU cannot be bought by a US company as easily as the US DOJ/presidency can.
You're right, you also need to mention the numerous massive fines the EU has given to European companies to show that the EU cannot be bought as easily as the US DOJ/presidency can.
(would give a link but I'm too lazy, just glance at the previous stories on this subject for pleanty of evidence)
I stole this Sig
Last time I recall, it was Sun & Realmedia who have been complaining about Microsoft mostly.
And they are both American companies!
As other posts have said, the EU has also fined the crap out of a load of EU companies too so they are pretty fair about it.
So then, if this ruling had not been made, Samba would still be dead by your argument. At no time has Microsoft been required to allow use of their specs for free so reverse engineering was the only way to go. If it becomes imposible to reverse engineer the protocols in the near future that surely is not the doing of this ruling by the EU is it?
Maybe you would have liked the EU to make MS open up their API's royalty free and they did not, but they sure as hell did more to punish MS's abuses than any other country around.
I bet Novell and Red Hat and IBM bring a expensive-samba-with-royalties-for-patents to the party.
Note that Novell isn't a charity, and selling interoperability to corporations is exactly one of their strenghts.
EU is not the whole world. There are other areas that are often being forgotten in the discussions; the whole region of Africa goes under the radar, together with South America, and I don't even mention Asia. For all of these, EU is largely irrelevant, together with the USA. They can fork, they have the source, and as long as they publish it, we all have it.
Instead of getting things free, open source has to learn work hard and produce something. Trying to force companies open up their source and IP will not be effective. In fact, if Europe ever does something like that Microsoft will show the middle finger to Europe, at the end Linux will be the only choice. That in turn may cause lots of problems since Linux is not a well-tested system, in fact is not stable at all. So this requests are more like idealogical requests. These requests looks more like communism to me, so we should actually try to stop Linux if that's what is after Linux. It is completely wrong in threatening people by attacking them.
"What stops them is that MS has full access to the SAMBA source code under the Open Source license just like the rest of us. If there was any hint of the MS leaked code in SAMBA, nothing would give MS greater pleasure than to come down hard on the SAMBA team."
And SCO has had full access to the Linux kernel source code. Didn't stop them.
Make the per-install charge the responsibility of the end user? The dev team will be out of the enforcement game.
Development teams based in law-heavy jurisdictions aren't the most robust way to do things these days. We still have large areas more or less outside the reach of the dirty paws of the lawyers - as I mentioned a while ago, most of South America, Africa, and Asia - with LOTS of people there, whose Net connectivity is getting better every week.
Why not officially call the original parmesan cheese "parmesan", and the variants "parmesanoids"? Describes the relation well enough for the customer, while keeping the distinction between the original and the copy.
Typical of the /. mods is that your post was rated insightful.
/. forte' Always easier to be emotional than factual
You don't even cite instances of why Ashcroft and the DOJ are a problem. This DOJ has done more to reign in corporate greed than the previous. In fact it was that the MS case was so badly mishandled by the previous administration that this one knew it was a lost cause.
However ignorace and bash-Bush is a
He is part of the reason that MS beat the first case. The gross mishandling of that and many other cases simply points out that this guy's opinion doesn't mean jack.
If anything it should point out everything wrong with it.
LOOK.
He would favor it. It adds an embedded tax. That 600M fine is just a tax on consumers by indirect means. Hence it is a favorite means of the left. You pretend to take the high road by taking money from the big bad "EVEEEL" corporation and protecting the little guy. You just convienently forget to mention that the fine really does come out of the little guy's pocket one way or another.
Real enforcement is to put processes in place to prevent future abuse, to take corrective action to fix past transgressions, and set forth policy that is clear to others.
Fining is to impress the weak minded simpletons that infest our world.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
So, in the future the Open Source developers won't be able to get the specs they never had access to in the past? What's the difference? It sure would have been nice to get all the specs for free, but you think that this "kills" Samba?
Exactly what law would MS use to prosecute the Samba developers, if they don't license the specs from MS? There would need to be a specific law being broken. Patent law? I don't think that the APIs are patented. Copyright? Samba developers can do cleanroom development to avoid copyright violations. Contract law? They don't have to enter into a contract with MS. Something else? What?
--
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, where does the road paved with evil intentions lead to?
This is not really surprising. During major technological shifts like the microcomputer revolution of the 1970s or the Internet revolution of the 1990s, big firms like IBM (1970s) or Microsoft (1990s) are often seen to be standing in the way of the small firms that represent the future.
When the situation changes, e.g. IBM's humbling by the other PC firms in the 1980s, or the implosion of the loss-making 'new economy' startups in the early 2000s, the regulators often change their tune as well. Harsh penalties against Microsoft probably wouldn't do anything to help the US IT sector, in fact the opposite, but maybe would help the EU IT sector (simply by weakening the US IT sector's power).
'hostile act''attacked the authority of the United States' 'our government must now engage'...
Wow, those are the kind of words that precedes a military intervention.
Tell, fellow americans, this Senator has some authority? Is well respected?
I hope this is really only a joke.
Miss Rice or Mr. Rumsfeld have told something about this case?
Somehow I don't think it would take off.
.....the EU has provided Microsoft with a major victory over its Open Source rivals because it will now be allowed to pursue royalty revenue from the APIs it publishes. Don't most Open Source projects such as Samba come free of charge??? How can you charge royalties if the program is already free? How is this a bad thing for Open Source software... sounds like it simply doesn't matter, for the most part... not that I think MS shouldn't be given the short-end at every possible junction, just that this is really a non-issue. Way to waste your bribe money Gates! >;)
Of blankness, I know nothing.
Don't most Open Source projects such as Samba come free of charge??? How can you charge royalties if the program is already free?
How is this a bad thing for Open Source software... sounds like it simply doesn't matter, for the most part... not that I don't think MS shouldn't be given the short-end at every possible junction, just that this is really a non-issue.
Way to waste your bribe money Gates! >;-)
Of blankness, I know nothing.
There is absolutely nothing to stop a third party coming in and making a cheese like Parmesan, which tastes like Parmesan, and for them to build up that brand independently. They just can't use the name 'Parmesan'. And indeed, this happens - for example in Ireland there is a local cheese called 'Regato' which is a Parmesan clone - pre-1992 it used to be marketed as 'the Irish Parmesan'. And it's nice, but it is different, and not Parmesan. In a fit of irony, it is now itself apparently Ireland's only PDO cheese and is apparently doing well in Greece.
Yeah, right, I'm American. That would explain why my name is in GERMAN. They really teach you some great reasoning skills over there. Well, that and grammer is spelled "grammar." Glad I'm not up to the Canadian level of education.
(Just joking, I'm a dirty American pig, but Froschmann is German for frogman... no idea where I got that name from.)
To try to be fair, lets take a look at this whole bundling with the OS issue. I think where we get confused is by calling windows an Operating system, there is an operating system in there but lets not forget that an operating system is a kernel and doesn't even include a way to interact with that kernel (ie shell, gui, etc). Nobody is really claiming that Microsoft should be forced to only distribute the operating system.
The windows operating system is equivelent to the linux operating system, the main place to go if you want just the linux operating system is kernel.org. No, what we are really talking about here is the Microsoft windows distributions and there is nothing wrong with Microsoft bundling all the software they want with them even if they are a monopoly. The real problem is having all those applications install by default. The default install should include only system level applications (ie the kernel, c libraries, shell and gui, basic set of standard utils for managing files and directories).
There is nothing wrong with them including all their apps in their distribution if they wanted to, so long as they don't default them in the install. There is no reason to deny them the right to include their browser on the cd, media player, etc. The justification for going this far is that they are a monopoly and I think it would be far enough in this corner of the issue, have a quarterly review of what they want to install by default by a panel which includes various experts from the industry (expert not measured in which fortune 500 they work for, but rather by expertise, Linus Torvalds for instance should be on the panel).
Their api's, protocols, filesystems, and formats of course should be fully published on the internet as well as all new api's and communications protocols at any point in time for the rest of eternity that their market share in desktop operating systems exceeds 40%, if they go under it and come back up to 40% everything kicks in again. Of course all their api's and protocols, filesystems, and formats cannot be patented and are rendered into the public domain upon creation.
The fine should be at least to the two of 200 billion as a rough estimate of illegitimate gains from their actions, payable in sums of 1billion per year us dollar equiv (adjusted to factor inflation) payable to a non-profit organization which will use it to fund open-source development. Some system would need to be implemented to get input on what the world needs unlocked from proprietary hands most.
Anyone else think this would be a FAIR and PROPER way of handling this that would actually have some effect if actively enforced?
Samba is a non-issue... Samba shouldn't exist because Windows shouldn't exist therefore Samba is of no use. Samba is a non-issue.
Why, exactly, is it OK to fine a company for doing one or more of the following?
I could go on...but do I really need to?
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
How well does it deal with active directory?
Samba is about 6 years behind Windows at all times. Before active directory they were just getting Domain controllers to work.
When Windows200 came it broke it.
Now right before catch up, guess what? Windows2003 server made changes with the domain controller code and active directory which f*cks samba up all over again.
Ya, they are doing fine with no help at all.
PS the DMCA makes it illegal to hack the SMB protocal because a packet sniffer is a copyright circumvention device. The crap that they have to go through is astounding to get anything done.
http://saveie6.com/
> Please remember to quote your variables (and backquote output). > You're going to get bitten by a name with a space in it one of these days. So are you - you haven't quoted the inside "$i" which will cause it to fail if a file has 2 or more spaces in a row, for example... And, what about filenames beginning with a "-" ? for i in *.jpeg ; do mv "$i" "`echo \"$i\" | sed 's/\.jpeg$/.jpg/'`" ; done
Sig out of date
I have put a few improvements in a years-old line in my tips.txt file. The fact is, since I never have spaces in my file names (spaces in file names usually come from ms-word files being named after their first line...), I have never felt the need for proper quoting, but it's good to have it, anyhow. That's what Slashdot is good for: one more little bit of debugging, thanks to Open Source Software!
If MS were to patent an entirely new file sharing API and/or protocol that was inoperable with current implementations of SAMBA, wouldn't this new protocol/API also be incompatible with current versions of windows?
If Longhorn+ can't share files with Server 2003/XP and before, companies may wait a very long time to roll out this new less compatible OS.
If being forced to levy fees for their opened-up interface specs is such a big win for Microsoft, don't you think they would have done it without the EU telling them to?
-- listen to interesting music, support independent radio... WPRB
I understand why some folks see Samba as important for market penetration. What I'm implying is that Linux may have reached the stage where it doesn't have to be a "drop in replacement" to gain acceptance. That if an OSS server has benefits then users/customers may be ready to change the worstation's network interface, instead of making the server march to the MS drum.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
We have seen several sentences in the US where Microsoft had to change the way it does business. They just kept fighting those rulings until they were made irrelevant by the passage of time.
With a fine this trick doesn't work, so I think that this is the first punishment that really hurts. OK, it is a tiny amount for Microsoft, but it sets the tune. Maybe the next time Microsoft is on trial in the US the US will consider a fine too.
I don't expect MS too raise prices for this. They set their prices at the level that they think the market can bear. That won't change, so the prices won't change.
When Pepsi is made and bottled in a diffrent country it tastes diffrent and is priced diffrently. Until someone steps on a family's name brand of cheese, or wine, or whatever hoity toity imported exported food stuffs you choose to be worthy of caring about, people just want to eat good food at reasonable prices.
What is stopping the OSS world for creating a new protocol to share disks and or directories, or using an open one, create a client and a server for Windows as well as for any OS required (i.e LINUX, Solaris, MacOS or whatever it is called)?
It baffles me the well intentioned stubborness of the Samba team. Why to dance at the tune of MS if we could make our own music?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Good rant!.
I will not point the obvious (why the US would comply with WTO rulings, as it has done in the past), but just congratulate you for an sterling work of missing all the points at once.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
the first mistake is 'microsoft'.
Sorry to be off subject Tiger but it is a tad hard to contact you for some vital info I HOPE you have. I saw in one of your postings that you had a script to get ICS working in Xandros (which they did omit by the way) I would rally appreciate if you could supply it to me or tell me where and how you set it up. If you like you could email me driect to oz4me@hotmail.com would appreciate your assistance