Slashdot Mirror
EC Suspends Microsoft Sanctions Due to Appeal
An anonymous reader writes "The European Commission has suspended sanctions against Microsoft stemming from a ruling that the group had abused its dominant market position."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
From the article, just to avoid the /. effect:
Microsoft has vowed to fight the EC's ruling
The European Commission has suspended sanctions against Microsoft stemming from a ruling that the group had abused its dominant market position.
The move came after the world's largest software company appealed against the decision at the EU court early in June.
The EC stressed that the move was an "interim measure" until a court had ruled on Microsoft's request. Microsoft has also asked for a long-term suspension of EU-imposed changes to the way the firm operates.
The changes ordered by the Commission include selling a version of Windows without its media player software.
Record fine
Microsoft was ordered to unbundle the software within 90 days - that deadline runs out on Monday.
The EC, in its March ruling, also hit Microsoft with a record fine of 497m euros (332m) and gave it 120 days to reveal details of its Windows software codes, so rivals could design compatible products more easily.
The remedies will not only hurt Microsoft, they will hurt many other software development companies and web site developers who have built products for the Windows platform
Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft lawyer
But on Friday, the company appealed to the Court of the First Instance in Luxembourg, asking it to suspend the orders for as long as its case remains before the European Courts.
That could see the penalties suspended for as long as three years.
As it announced the suspension, the Commission said that "in the interest of a proper administration of justice", it was delaying the implementation of its measures "while a Microsoft application for interim measures is being considered".
But it added that the decision to put the punishment on hold was "without prejudice to Microsoft's obligation to implement the remedies" if the court decides to reject Microsoft's request.
Unfair advantage
"The Commission believes that the remedies are reasonable, balanced and necessary to restore competition in the marketplace and that there is a strong public interest in favour of implementing them without waiting for the judgement on the substance of the case," a statement added.
Microsoft has vowed to fight the Commission's finding that it had broken competition laws, arguing that the EC sanctions will stunt competition and innovation, and limit consumer choice.
Microsoft's Windows software runs on about 90% of the world's PCs.
Rivals, including Real Networks, have complained that the company was unnecessarily bundling in software with its operating system, and as a result gaining an unfair advantage.
One of the main bones of contention was Microsoft's media player - software used to play audio and video, as well as to burn CDs.
'Lost forever'
Bundling media player in with its Windows software meant that consumers rarely looked for similar products offered by other companies, critics argued.
The EU agreed and told Microsoft in March that it had 120 days to reveal details of its Windows software codes so rivals could design compatible products more easily.
It was also instructed to offer a version of its Windows operating system minus the media player within 90 days.
It could, however, still sell Windows with the media player included.
"The remedies will not only hurt Microsoft, they will hurt many other software development companies and web site developers who have built products for the Windows platform," the company's lawyer Horacio Gutierrez said.
Well, I can understand the appeal making sense in witholding the source code - once its out in the public domain you really can't get it back in.
As for the fine, however, they should pay up now like most ordinary people do when they lose a court case (You normally have to pay costs upfront if you lose a case before you can appeal, at least in Australia and most places elsewhere I suspect too).
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
"I agree. When you're thrown in jail for being convicted of a crime, they don't let you go just because you're put in for an appeal. They throw your ass in jail and you can wait there."
Martha Stewart is out pending her appeal. So yes it happens, in fact it happens quite often especially in cases involving nonviolent crimes, white collar crimes etc.
The EP(arlament) voted against patenting software.
The EP is choosen directly by voters.
The EC is choosen by the states' govs.
What the Commission has offered is to suspend the sanctions only for a few months until the Court rules on whether they are acceptable as "interim measures".
The European Court of Justice is expected to take several years to decide on the Microsoft appeal as a whole.
But the ECJ ruling on appropriate "interim measures" is expected much sooner, literally within months.
Microsoft are just embracing their legal right to appeal, something that they are perfectly entitled to do. The EU are the ones to blame for the suspension of sanctions, not microsoft, even if the majority of slashdotters do place them on a par with the GNAA and people who boil puppies alive in vegetable oil.
It appears they havent seen this
As for unbundling windows media player, how do ppl without internet get a media player? Aside from media player classic, windows media player is the best one out there
The appeal will probably take around 5 years. In the meantime ...
Looking at the wording of the article carefully, it appears that the EU Commission are only suspending sanctions whilst the Court are considering what the interim ruling should be. This may be just a bit of legal maneouvering: if the court subsequently decides to uphold the sanctions in part, prior to a trial, it then looks like a win for the Commission.
See here
For reference, Article 19 is:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
As far as I'm concerned, I"P" law is plain evil (well, I'm a bit vague about Trademarks, but certainly Copyright and Patent), but Article 27 (which I have doubts about) also says:
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or
artistic production of which he is the author.
So the problems arise at the collision between 19+27(1) and 27(2), mostly. (18, "Freedom of Thought" might also become important in the near future, particularly for those of us who consider our computers extensions of our minds).
Personally, I would hold Article 19 and 27(1) as obviously trumping any "protection" under Article 27(2) if the "protection" causes a violation of Article 19 or Article 27(1). But maybe other people care less about freedom and more about profit - if so, then fuck them if they think they'll restrict my freedom, I have a masters in mechanical engineering and I'm not afraid to use it...
And "Protection" is not defined - perhaps sufficient protection would be protection from fraud/plagiarism - i.e. while I should be able to freely copy information or implement devices as I see fit, I should probably not be able to claim that I wrote or designed them if I didn't. Then:
(1) Re "copyright": you can't censor me, but people know it's a better bet to pay you, not me, to produce further cool new information-patterns, and
(2) Re "patent": I can share in scientific advancements without interference, but people know it's a better bet to pay you, not me, to make further ones.
Choice of masters is not freedom.
The Parliament only gets to approve or not. It is a bit like appointments to the US Supreme Court, I suppose. However, the EP does not get to approve individual members of the EC, just approve the entire slate, or reject it. (Treaty of Nice, articles 214 and 215, ammended). Prior to the Treaty of Nice the EC was purely appointed by the member governments with no EP involvement.
You're missing two key points:
Life is too short to proofread.
Apples and oranges, dude..
Don't for a second assume that criminal law and civil law work the same way.
And apart from that, a criminal can very well be released pending appeal too, it's at the judge's discretion.
Bail is something else, that is pending trial, e.g. while you are still innocent, and it's there to guarantee you show up at the trial.
This isn't strictly true. The European Commision made a decision to fine Microsoft, but they are not a court -- just a regulatory institution of the European Union. What we're about to see now is the first actual court case. Only after it rules will Microsoft be convicted and sentenced (or aquitted).