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)
Just patent sanctions in the EU. No more pesky anti-trust problems.
The beginning of the EU caving in to M$ and the US. It is the one of the last bumps in the road before the EU goes the US route of worshipping big corporations at the exclusion of all else. Corps can do NO wrong.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Hello,
The EC voted for patenting software. Why should we be impressed by this new decision?
Kisses
--
You'd stumble in my footsteps (Depeche Mode, "Walking in my shoes")
The appeal will probably take around 5 years. In the meantime ...
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.
From article:
Microsoft was ordered to unbundle the software within 90 days - that deadline runs out on Monday.
Paraphrasing:
EU: "You must unbundle the software in 90 days"
Microsoft: "Is it ok if I decide to not do it instead of doing it?"
EU: "Ok!"
Sometimes, court rulings should be just that.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
Given that even CERT is now warning against teh use of some MS components I hope that the rest of the platform gets the thumbs down it richly deserves.
Anyone involved in risk management shoudl by now have woken up to the fact that the MS platform combines high cost with high risk. Does it surprise anyone that people choose alternatives that combine low risk with low cost?
The law is too slow - let the market decide.
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.
The same should be true for monitary punishments. Pay up, and if you win, you can have it back. It's still better then jail time, because they can't give you back lost time.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I don't think the European court system will tolerate the delaying tctics US courts allow. In most other countries SCO would have been over 6 months ago.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
their monopoly and the choke hold on the market is coming to an end. we don't need no stinkin' corrupt legislation/lobbying to bring that about. let the big corps and the legislators shake hands and shake whatever else they do for each other. the people will have moved on. they will become irrelevent. and in this respect the GPL is brillient. it's a check-mate to them, using their rules, on their turf. long live the GPL/FOSS.
yesterday it was apache/linux on the servers. today it's firefox on the desktop. tomorrow it will be one more. the dominos are toppling.
"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.
Screw the code.
Screw the money.
Screw "business remedies".
All of these could be said to "excessively hurt Microsoft", and most importantly *do not reduce barriers to entry* (with the possible partial exception of the code).
What competitors *really* need is Microsoft forced to open their file formats and network protocols, so that they can fully interoperate.
Microsoft got where they were by bundling products together and keeping them from interoperating with competitors' products. Fining Microsoft and then letting them continue doing what they were doing may help out the EU, but doesn't do a whole lot to solve the problem.
There are *very* few arguments Microsoft can make against opening file formats and network protocols. There is minimal IP value in each -- it doesn't take a smegging horde of PhDs years of research to create the Word file format. It does nothing but help the consumer, and helps mean that Microsoft always needs to compete.
So, I'm not surprised that patents, consumer rights as related to music, and now this Microsoft thing, are going in the favorable direction of Big Business, rather than the consumer.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
They've realized the product cycles of the software world are smaller than the amount of time it takes to run a court case. This basically means you can violate whatever laws you like, and no one will do anything, because they can't stop you until winning a court case; but by the time they manage to run the court case to completion, the company you were violating said law against is bankrupt, the product you were doing it with has been replaced, the violation is no longer relevant to what you're doing currently, and no one seems to care so much about punishment because what's happened is in the past...
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
without the EU entirely understanding what it means, the court has asked for "software codes" to be released. what i _intended_ them to ask for - specifically - was for all of microsoft's internal RFCs to be made public, plus all of their IDL files, and any other internal documentation (such as it is in some cases!!) relating to "interfaces".
i cannot _quite_ understand how microsoft's lawyer believes, unless they are admitting that by releasing details of "interfaces" that somehow extra viruses will be written to target them, that "damage will be done to other software development companies".
I am not at all surprised MS is making progress on this appeal. The ruling was really a piss poor way for the EU to flex its collective muscle against a US corporate giant. Not that MS doesn't deserve to be investigated for anit-competitive business practices. In particular the recent (or not so recent for some) revelations that MS has been funding nearly all of the so called independant studies showning MS products as better, faster, safer and even cheaper than open source. The problem here is much like the problem with the Kyoto protocal. It's the right idea but so poorly drafted that it renders it completely meaningless. It is about time someone put MS in its place, but if you are going to use bull**** allegations to do it then you are going to fail in the end.
"Take that Lisa's beliefs!" - Homer Simpson
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.
During those 5 years they will incrase their market share to far off-set the fine ( remember the fine will be in 2004 dollars, not 2009 dollars )..
Its just a cost of doing business ( and advancing their stranglehold of the world market ) to them.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Great idea, so suppose I am wrongly found guily of murder and sentenced to death should I be executed before the appeal which may prove me innocent concludes ?
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Actually, the EC is doing the wise thing from the model slashbot's point of view, even if he or she doesn't realize it.
Microsoft has a very strong case for a temporary restraining order, and the court was overwhelmingly likely to have granted one if the EC had tried to play hardball. No, make that "the court would have granted one" -- the court of the first instance needs to decide whether or not there's going to be irrevocable harm in enforcing the EC order before the order is allowed to come into force. Because the order would have come into force tomorrow, the court would have had to grant a TRO until after the motion to set aside the penalties had been heard and decided.
If a TRO is granted, the EC loses control over the penalties; it has to go to the court and grovel if it wants to threaten MS with them. This step makes it less likely that a TRO will be granted prior to the first hearing, which leaves the EC with at least a little leverage. Worse, if the EC had chosen to play hardball here, the court would likely have looked askance at any attempt to reactivate the sanctions -- any judge would look at the EC's representative and ask "How do I know you won't try to railroad this court again?" That's not a question any attorney wants to be asked by any judge anywhere.
No, the EC made a wise strategic choice here. It's better to make a tactical retreat than make your strategic position infinitely worse.
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
Many government detractors think it's bad for the federal government to meddle in business, tamper with the marketplace, and otherwise get in the way of Business doing what it does, best.
They're right, it's bad.
But there's something worse - when the opposite happens, when business meddles in the business of government, which despite all detractors, Government does governing better than business does.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
What's needed is legal recognition of when something has become "standard". It needs to be the kind of law that recognizes 'de-facto' instead of or in addition to 'de-jur'. As long as you're not a legally recognizable "standard" in this fashion, you can keep things as secret as you want. As soon as you pass the test, you MUST open the formats/protocols.
Another type of "standard" that could be forced open: Any communications between the government and its agencies and the general public will be in formats that are free, openly, publicly documented, and free of patent encumbrance. That means, for instance, any data available from a government-operated system (including, but not limited to websites) without some form of specific access control such as login. It excludes things like contractor communications.
It's pretty clear that MS Office format, SMB, and a few others would pass the litmus test for "standard" by these definitions. So would pdf and ps, for that matter. Word Perfect might, too. (common in legal usage)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
intellectual property alone grants them the right to keep these closed.
I don't know what the root justification is for copyrights and patents in Europe, but in many countries, copyrights and patents exist to promote the progress of technology. Wouldn't such a strong barrier to entry run against this justification?
I may not be the biggest fan of Microsoft, but it does seem unfair to force a company to remove software from it's offerings. It's not their fault that people don't look for a better media player, there are plenty out there. True that by bundling Windows Media player in Windows does cause a monopoly to form, but that doesn't mean some commission can up and say that they don't like that and Microsoft has to take it out and publish one without it. Shame on you EC!
EU law explicitly allows you to reverse engineer a file or message format (i.e., by reverse engineering code) for any product that you own in order to interface with it. This is a rather nice quirk which acknowledges that people have a right to develop interoperable hetrogenous systems.
See my journal, I write things there
Jeez, if I were Microsoft I'd really be careful about how I play things right now. They're not fighting a case against Sun or IBM or something here, or against the government of their home country even, they're fighting a foreign government who really don't like them very much at the moment. They need to be careful about their actions throughout this appeal, because if it looks like they are trying to get out of it by using delaying tactics until Longhorn is released or something like that then they could definitely get bitten on the arse.
I mean think about it for a minute, what government is going to tolerate Microsoft taking the piss out of them and trying to worm out of punishment in this way? Okay, the US government (no flamebait intended), but at least you can see their point of view... MS is a large, profitable US company, and hurting MS could also hurt the power of the US. However, this time we're talking about the EU, and although MS may employ many people in Europe or whatever, they are essentially a foreign company, and I do not think the EC really gives as much of a shit if it hurts MS or not.
Anyway, I am no expert on international politics or legal proceedings or anything, but I am just imagining myself as a politician who is looking at Microsoft defying the legal judgement of my government and having a big old hearty laugh about it. I'd be pretty pissed off, and I'd be wanting to do something about it.
swpat game is not yet over nl parl might revoke the minister's vote Even after that there's second reading, but it's better to stop at this stage. (Doing the same as the dutch in your country might help ;)
The picture of Mr. Gates in the article says it all, really...
So there it is. Like the Americans, we oh-so-superior Europeans now know that we too have the best 'justice' that money can buy.
Julia Cameron
Oich ù agus hiùraibh éile
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.
I use Linux and I am a christian and I love the GNU lifestyle.
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).
I knew that one existed. But can you imagine the amount of money it would take to administer such a beast. Can you also imagine when the Press put out that it was just to protect Microsoft's profits from competition? Sure, Microsoft literally gets away with Corporate Murder now, and the government fumbles idly by, but that's a little different than active complicity.
Actually, IMHO when the government publishes data in a MS encumbered format, such as the Windows Media Player stuff on NASA, they're aiding and abetting a convicted criminal. They shouldn't put out public data in ANY encumbered format or protocol, but Microsoft has EARNED a special place with their conduct.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
That could see the penalties suspended for as long as three years.
EU courts found that Microsoft's prior behaviour is bad for their citizens, and yet they are going to allow this behaviour to continue for 3 more years? I understand suspending the fine, but since when suspected murderers are allowed to go and murder more people while their case is decided?