Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft's EU Appeal is Ready

psic writes "According to techworld, Microsoft plans on lodging its official appeal to the European Commission concerning the EC's decision to fine the software giant 497.2 million euros, as well as forcing them to open up part of the code of Windows, "so other products could interoperate with it better". It's taken Microsoft a couple of months, but their appeal is ready. One interesting thing is the fact that an appeal will take at least three years to conclude. But the decision of the EC might just come into effect very soon, regardless of Microsoft's appeal."

14 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Wait a minute... by NickeB · · Score: 5, Informative

    Uh... they were required to make a "new" version of Windows without the media player built in?

  2. Interest by rubicon7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Assuming 1) it takes three years for the appeal process to be completed, and 2) Microsoft will not pay the fine until they *lose* the appeal, will they also be liable for the interest on the money? Its not an insignificant amount...

    --
    --- We are not in the 8th dimension. We are over New Jersey.
  3. From the department of obvious statements by Big+Nothing · · Score: 5, Funny

    From article: "Microsoft has expressed disappointment with the EU ruling."

    In related news: Getting stabbed in the face hurts. For a while.

    --
    SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
  4. Re:Wait a minute... by schemanista · · Score: 5, Funny

    this article has a farily severe misspelling

    We need a "+1 Unintentional Irony" modifier.

    --
    I saw that shot more than a few times back when Starbuck was a man. ~ lucabrasi999
  5. Re:This is great by blueZhift · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not only that, but this can be good for Microsoft too in the long run because it will force them to compete. Even the best intentioned companies can put out rubbish when they don't have the gun of competition to their heads.

  6. There was bound to be an appeal... by doodlelogic · · Score: 5, Informative

    The original decision was a determination of the European Commission. This is part of the executive branch of the European Union, and you could see its rulings as equivalent to rulings of the Office of Fair Trading/ Competition Commission here in the UK, or the Department of Justice in the US. There is an automatic right of appeal from such decisions to the judicial branch (the European Court): this is seen as an essential part of the system of checks and balances in the EU. Strictly, the case is currently being appealed to the European Court of First Instance: there is a further layer of appeal to the European Court itself.

    The three year gap between government making its mind up on the case it wishes to pursue and final determination of that case in the courts is not that different from what might be expected in the US I think, in a case involving this much money and complexity. The further appeal may stretch things out a little further but not necessarily as (a) the European Court tends to follow the decisions of the CFI and (b) the Court has the power to call the case before it immediately, leapfrogging the intermediate stage (I believe again this is a similarity with the US Supreme Court- Federal Courts relationship, on which the European judicial institutions are modelled).

  7. 600 million dollars by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    well about 612.7, but anyway is this part of the judgment enough for M$ to care about other than how it looks in the press?

    Looking at the current stock price of 26.13 we calculate the number of outstranding shares at about 10,792,192,882.

    The last dividend payment was 0.16 a share, which would come in a total of $1,726,750,861.08 , so they cut the dividend by a third for one quarter - big deal.

    I guess what they really care about is having to open up their source, with all of the recent exploits, one can only imagine what will happen if the source is public knowledge (a whole new can of worms - ba da bing). It could be a public relations fiasco, especially if it comes to light that there are many exploits that are or should have been known by MS.

  8. 3years ? by Ploum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, in 2007 they will produce a Windows XP without Media Player. But who will buy WinXP in 2007 ?

    This is just the time for launching LongHorn ! (and it will be bundled with Duke Nukem Forever)

    And in 2012 they will release a light-Longhorn version without ExtraDRMizedMediaPlayer. Oh wait, 2012 is the date they will launch Microsoft Windows Interface, a really cool new Desktop Manager for the Linux 4.0 kernel.

    Tsss... 3 years in computer science is like thousand years of history...

  9. Alternetive players by bcmm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is there going to be anything to stop Microsoft associating media files with a little program that says something like: "You do not have Windows Media Player installed. Windows Media Player is required to view media. Click here to download Windows Media Player."?

    Then all the normal users would still use WMP.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  10. Re:Even if they lose... by jimicus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You missed the point. The 497 million euro fine isn't supposed to achieve much. Being forced to open their APIs and standards is the kicker.

    Samba, for instance, could go from being a pretty good if not always complete implementation of SMB to a complete drop-in replacement very quickly indeed. Developing a complete replacement for Exchange which can interoperate with an existing Exchange setup becomes much more faesible.

  11. Losing party pays by doodlelogic · · Score: 5, Informative

    This AC is basically correct. Losing party pays used to be the rule until the new Civil Procedure Rules came into force in England and Wales in 2001(Scotland and Northern Ireland having separate legal systems).

    Now, generally, the losing party pays BUT if you've been unreasonable (e.g. by refusing to settle a case, then winning, but by less than the amount you were offered to make a deal), the winner can now get stumped with the loser's legal costs (from the date the offer was made).

    AFAIK and IANAL but I thought most Commonwealth countries had a system of losing party pays. US is somewhat different, I think.

    This case is going to be different again though as it is brought by the European Commission, in the European Courts where national laws and court procedure are irrelevant.

  12. Re:I my GOD! by sentientbeing · · Score: 5, Informative


    it a quote from southpark and its a defence that just doesnt make sense...

    --

    ------
    beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
  13. Quite right too! by Bralkein · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "But the decision of the EC might just come into effect very soon, regardless of Microsoft's appeal."
    Yeah, and damn good thing too! I don't see why the rulings that were made didn't just come into effect right away. I don't really know much about legal proceedings and such, but I'm pretty sure that if a fellow gets convicted of murder or whatever and sent to prison, he isn't just allowed to say "OMG NO FAIR I APPEAL MAN" and then he can walk free for three years until his appeal comes back.

    The way I see it, Microsoft should simply have to comply right away. Then, if they want to lodge an appeal claim, then they are perfectly entitled to do so. If they win, they get their fine back with interest, as well as compensation for any money lost due to the other rulings. Maybe, as they say, once their systems are openly documented they cannot simply be UN-documented if they are found to be innocent. Then again, if a jailed man is found to be innocent, his lost time can't just be given back. That's the way the law works, and it needs to be the same for everyone!
  14. Re:parking meter money by SEWilco · · Score: 5, Funny
    I dont know about you, but if someone tried to fine me 497.2 million i would be happy to wait three more years before paying.

    OK, I fine you $497.2 million.
    I'll be happy to wait three years for you to pay.