Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft EU Monopoly Appeal Thrown Out
smnicoll writes "The European Court of First Instance has thrown out Microsoft's appeal to have penalties for the abuse of monopoly suspended, reports BBC News Online.
'Microsoft's application for interim measures is therefore dismissed in its entirety,'
The court's statement said. 'The evidence adduced by Microsoft is not sufficient to show that implementation of the remedies imposed by the Commission might cause serious and irreparable damage.' The commission's case is mainly focused on Microsoft's integration of Windows Media Player into the operationg system and the effects that has on the ability of Real Networks and Apple to get their rival players used." Similar stories at Bloomberg, CNET, and Reuters (via CNN).
They got where they are through greed and deceit, they deserve to have no mercy given to them. Serves 'em right.
FP?
Moll.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
people actually find Windows Media Player a threat?
i would be more concerned about the integration of IE into windows but then again that is just my opinion
Yeah, let's see. There are huge variety of free media players. A truly dizzing array. Most computers come with a small selection. There are a handfull of companies that manage to make money selling others. But Microsoft should be the only one that isn't allowed to give one away as a convience, because computers have know business knowing how to render extremely common data unto the user out of the box, and oh yeah, "Microsoft has cash. We want cash. Let's sue them, despite all the companies being involved being American."
...Does anybody (and I mean in the large market of "normal" users) really want a Windows without Media Player? Does anybody care?
Of course, what might matter is that the judgements of the Court creates a precedent, but here in Europe, laws are different, and precedents don't carry as much weight as in the US.
Ander
@=
"Sorry but then perhaps you should keep your company in America ..."
I would love to see Microsoft not do business outside the United States. Can you imagine the sheer magnitude of the celebration parties that would take place in the rest of the world?
The "greed and deceit" of microsoft pales in comparison to the issues governments on both sides of the pond should be attacking.
It just seems like a waste of time and so 5 years ago. Market has changed, economy has changed and believe it or not there is competition and i don't think any of these lawsuits had anything to do with building the open market we have today.
Remember, this lawsuit and appeal will only affect people who choose to support microsoft products. This doesn't make linux or apple more prevelant. This doesn't stop contracts with vendors and this doesn't do much to open windows up.
I don't get it how the governments on both sides have attacked microsoft for being closed, proprietary and "cheating" the system with the hooks and features they only know about yet companies like SCO are suing for billions to try and make sure that it's code remains proprietary, remains closed and remains controlled.
doesn't make sense
Is this decision as big as it seems. Either investors (a notoriously jumpy sort) have a good reason to believe the stock will continue to rise or the news isn't as big as one would have thought.
C'mon, I dont believe there's anything in it about EU proving something or 'sure showed the dirty, nasty US'. I believe that they did a sensible thing. The appeals process will take 5 years ... so whats the significance of the earlier ruling if MS can go about doing everything as it was doing before the concerend ruling. Now MS will have to comply to the ruling for the present and is free to continue the appeals. Who knows what MS might pull off in 5 years that renders the earlier ruling irrelevant (like MS might change its packaging in some other twisted way such that the ruling cannot impose the change it actually asked to be enforced)
even better:
mandate that ALL file formats be open, documents, photos & graphics, audio/video = multimedia...
"Following precedents is rather like walking backwards. i would rather there have been a mandate that audio and video codecs be open."
You missed the point. They were "in trouble" because they bundled a media player with their OS. Nobody is saying MSFT can't distribute their media player [crappy as it may be]. Just they can't include it in the OS.
What microsoft has to realize is that if they didn't market 95/98 so poorly [e.g. you can watch movies and play mp3s, etc...] and peddle these half baked programs [stupid backup/anti-virus/etc] and simply focus on a solid core OS.... they would be better off.
They could still sell their other software but if I walked into a store and bought windows I would not be installing 1.5GB of useless software that I'll simply replace with other implementation then pray someone with a net connection doesn't look at my box wrong lest they exploit it.
All about choice.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Agreed. Back before Microsoft was going through all of this antitrust business, another program being included in the operating system would just be considered an added bonus. Don't get me wrong, I hate Microsoft, but why the hell are we focusing on things that are so ridiculous when there are a LOT of things that Microsoft does that are really worth antitrust litigation? If apple was ever to break out of the niche market, would their inclusion of iTunes and Quicktime be considered abuse of Monopoly? Everyone seems to be fine with it now.
In the past I think this type of action hurt us more than helping us. We complained that Internet Explorer was shipped with windows, and now it's been completely integrated into windows, justifying arguements against removing it. Will the same sort of thing happen with Media Player?
In the case of Media player v. Real, Real has to work harder to differntiate its product from MS to get people to actually use it. It's been my experience that Real hasn't had a big problem getting their client onto people's computers.
Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/
Integrating media player into windows is an illegal extension of monopoly? Are they kidding?
Is including notepad illegal too? Doesn't that make it more difficult for makers of text editors to compete?
For that matter, isn't bundling the interface with device drivers illegal too?
Here's a thought:
If the software is a player or viewer, i.e. does not let you create content, then it should be bundled into the operating system because its inefficient to make customers chase are around after it.
If the software is productive (i.e. it lets the user produce content (like word processors, spreadsheets, photoshop, etc.)) then it shouldn't be bundled.
Maybe if Apple didn't make Quicktime launch at startup I might want to keep it on my computer.
THEY CALL ME PASTABAGEL
The "greed and deceit" of microsoft pales in comparison to the issues governments on both sides of the pond should be attacking.
Not if you're one of the tens of thousands Microsoft's greed and deceit has harmed financially.
I'm so sick of the fallacy that because there is [insert some terrible world problem here], we should turn a blind eye to [insert lessor injustice here]. I'm even more sick of the ugly (all too American, these days) mentality that if an injustice doesn't affect you, you shouldn't worry about it or care (and indeed, if an injustice benefits you, however indirectly, you should somehow support it). Enough of that nonsense already!
Injustice is injustice, whether it affects Linux or not. Harm is harm, and it should be fought everywhere. Yes, software patents need to be stopped in Europe and overturned in the US. Yes, SCO's executives should be in prison. And yes, Microsoft should pay the piper for their years of anti-competative, greedy and deceitful behavior, irrespective of what the market has done to try and mitigate the consiquences of said behavior. "The market" may or may not have adapted (it is highly debatable that there's much of a free market at all when it comes to PC desktops), but certainly those who were run out of business and had their livelihoods ruined by Microsoft's illegal activities didn't have that option, and Microsoft owes society, and arguably those individuals, some reparations in addition to ceasing and desisting in their behavior.
A child misbehaves, and a decent parent won't just require the child stops, they'll punish the child in some way as a disincentive for the child starting up again the moment the parent's back is turned.
Microsoft is one big ugly ill-behaved child that needs a good, hard spanking and a great deal of corrective behavior.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
No, it's not the same thing. Yes it would have been the same thing if Apple had been a monopoly.
As has been said many times before, being a monopoly places more restrictions on what you can do compared to when you are not a monopoly.
Actually.. i think that MS only has a future if it can get out of the os business... if they would focus on providing productivity software they might survive. If they cling to the OS market they will inevitably be surpassed by the next best thing... it's a hog cycle really, and the hog is now Linux.
-if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
A local monopoly (power company) is not the same thing as a nationwide or worldwide monopoly. If you don't like your local power company, you do have the option to move elsewhere. However, how could you get away from Microsoft, no matter where you went?
When Microsoft does comment, I bet Steve Ballmer will say, "Microsoft has learned and grown through the experience. We are committed to moving forward as a responsible leader in an industry that is constantly, constantly changing."
And I bet Bill Gates will say, "This settlement puts new responsibilities on Microsoft, and we accept them," and also that he is "personally committed to full compliance."
Well, that's what happened at the end of the Anti-Trust case.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
It's your own fault if you buy their products. Their existance in your country doesn't effect you in an way but giving you (or your government) another choice.
MS will be releasing two versions of Windows from now on, both priced the same, but one will have media player and one won't. Shocking to anyone?
I like muppets.
Making Microsoft unbundle components of the OS is a weak solution. Microsoft will do that but so something like like ask the user every week if they want to install it.
The real solution would be to force all PC vendors to include a option to buy the hardware without a OS and when doing so it must be listed with full credit of the OEM cost of Windows. So when a vendor says it includes $200 of software, I should be able to get $200 off if I buy it without an OS. Vendors could also offer Linux and BSD options. Make Microsoft contracts with the hardware vendors void as they are anti-competative.Because one of the big problems is that vendors like Dell, Sony and others do not give us a choice. For those running Linux or a BSD, you still have to buy a product that pays Microsoft extortion.
And if the US courts had any guts they would pass such a judgement instead of folding up like a house of cards
You see, it hasn't hurt me.
I chose to run windows. I also chose to run OS/2 and i also chose to run Linux and Solaris.
I chose to use Internet explorer and i chose to use Netscape and now i choose to use Firefox.
I also chose to use windows media player over everything else and i agree that the media player should be fully integrated with the OS because that is a feature we as in windows users request just as sound in kde/linux is done.
I don't think there is any injustice in the practices the EU are suing for. I don't want the EU suing so anoter crappy business (Real Audio) can get in with spyware and take over my pc - if anything Microsof thas been the most cooth over keeping things clean and protecting your consumer rights.
Server code doesn't need to be shared either. Thats like telling Oracle they need to share there IP because other databases that are emulating them are having to hack support or use proprietary systems.
Please tell me how microsoft has and continues to stimmy competition, the market and harm consumers?
Tell me again how the government suing microsoft in this case and the others will benefit the tax payers paying for these suits?
Why do courts always ignore the bootloader issue?
The bootloader license between Microsoft and OEMS states that the Microsoft bootloader must be installed as the primary bootloader and also that the MS bootloader must only be used to boot MS OS's.
Microsoft can revoke the vendor's license to include Windows on the machine if the bootloader license is violated. Because the world runs on Windows, no hardware vendor can afford to ship machines that don't include Windows alongside whatever alternative they might want to offer.
When companies are denied the possibility of shipping computers with Windows AND any other OS without losing favor with Microsoft there is no way for any other OS to get a foot in the door.
Great OLD article about the bootloader issue and the demise of BeOS: http://www.birdhouse.org/beos/byte/30-bootloader/
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
How hard is it to write a media player that outshines WMP? It's not that difficult at all. In fact it's been done already several times. The problem with all of them is that while they gripe about Microsoft's "greed" they get greedy themselves and resort to tactics that the user finds distasteful.
They force the media player to run some component as a startup item. They develop their own proprietary format (that in most cases is inferior to Windows Media). They refuse to share the format with competitors. They bombard the user with splash screens, registration and upgrade prompts. They cram enough advertising into the players that it reaches the point of user punishment so that they can have further reason for an upgrade. They add components that intrude into areas outside of music playing such as video and web whether the user asks for it or not. They forcibly run some sort of agent that constantly checks for or prompts for upgrades.
Now with all this why would I want some third party media player? All I asked for is to listen to some music. I think in the year 2004 that my computer should be able to do it easily the moment I plug it in. My Apple can do it. My Linux box can do it. Shouldn't my XP box be able to do it? Why would you ask Microsoft to unbundled WMP from Windows? If you want me to use your media player instead just do one simple thing: write a better one and don't make me swallow a bunch of crap with it. No one seems to be able to do this so instead of trying they go cry to their lawyer and the next thing you know my PC can no longer play media when I take it out of the box.
People whine too much about Microsoft being unfair and having a monopoly. They also gripe about the inferiority of their products. Well guess what? You can't have it both ways. If they are so inferior why don't you just beat them? Probably because you suck. Look at Firefox. Do you see them whining? Do you see them suffering from Microsoft's monopoly? No. They just STFU and wrote a better product. Somehow they managed to do it without cramming a bunch of unwanted crap in with it; AMAZING!!
So stop litigating instead of innovating. Stop being greedy and you might get what you're after. MS isn't that hard to beat you just have to stop whining and suing long enough to do it.
To everyone saying this is ridiculous. Yes it is, but most gov't interference with business is. MS has taken advantage of all kinds of patent, dmca, and copyright law. They lobby governments all of the time, and in some cases us tax dollars pay to support MS sales over-seas. Now this it-political game they support has bitten them. And I'm expected to sympathize? -t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
It's a case against monopoly abuses.
You should read again about what a monopoly is, and what consequences it has. If there truly was a choice, it wouldn't be monopoly. 90% of the market definitely is a monopoly.
That's another point. EU's ruling does not intend to define precisely where such line is. They have a case, and they try it. It states multimedia apps are clearly on the wrong side of this line, wherever it precisely is. Would you say it's fully part of an OS?
Anyway, again, nobody would really care if there wasn't an unfair use of a previously unfair monopoly.
Typical free-trade extremism. Too much free-trade kills the free-trade. As of anything else.
Funny how in the states we have to deify what we don't understand. "In god we trust" state our notes. When it's not about JC's god, it's about a economical "magic hand" one. No such things in real life.
Think of it from an evolutionary perspective. If you let the big kill the small and get bigger, you get a dinosaurs world. Evolution theory doesn't work without ecological niches.
If it was the way you see it, you wouldn't be here to comment on it.
Think of it from a justice perspective if you prefer. What would be justice for if letting the strong anihilate the weak was working better?
"Take away our PlayStations
And we're a third-world nation"
A.D.
how the fuck this got modded "insightful" i dont know
They are a convicted monopolist. Do you know what tat ACTUALLY means? it measn tyou cannot ABUSE that monopoly in order to monopolise other areas, ref IE, and now WMP
so yes, they can offer it free, however you cannot include it with the package and deliberatley exclude (via OEM contracts) other companies from bundling additional players. It gives you another monopoly.
It isnt about cash. And the fact they may be based partl in the US makes not a squat - if you want to do business in a territory, you have to abide by the rules of that territory, and abide by the legal penalties
or are you getting pissed off cos europe is again doing something that you lot couldnt manage, ie holding them to account?
If apple was ever to break out of the niche market, would their inclusion of iTunes and Quicktime be considered abuse of Monopoly? Everyone seems to be fine with it now.
OK, I know this is really hard for some people to understand, but having a monopoly causes capitalism to fail. Capitalism works because of competition. Without competition capitalism just funnels money from one group to another without any work being done.
No one complains about Apple bundling itunes or quicktime because they are not a monopoly. If Apple was a monopoly (not just 50% of the market but enough to make going with someone else pretty much impossible) we would be complaining about their DRM and their bundling.
We complained that Internet Explorer was shipped with windows, and now it's been completely integrated into windows, justifying arguements against removing it.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Slashdot complained loudly about the inclusion of a program with a dominant OS, that put everyone else out of business and destroyed an open standard. Now as a defensive measure that program is not only bundled, but welded on to the OS, resulting in the same as above and huge security problems for MS.
Will the same sort of thing happen with Media Player?
Will MS keep giving tons of money to politicians? Yes, it will be built in and the U.S. government will either do nothing or take so long to do anything that it is too late. Hopefully other countries will not be so easily bribed and will decide instead to capitalize on the popularity of anti-americanism to get re-elected.
It's your own fault if you buy their products..
And the OEM's have nothing to do with this? I don't live in the U.S. but when I bought my first computer it had Windows preinstalled on it.. I never asked for it nor was I ever given other options. Microsoft first got to IBM (an international OEM I might add) and when they were in the bag - the rest of the OEM's came easy, IBM was the largest of them all (still are) and the rest were sheep. That, my friend, is how Microsoft became a monopoly. It had nothing to do with Microsoft's OS being "superior" in any way, shape or form. It was simply "good enough" for IBM machines. Who says you have to use Windows at home? No one, but if my workplace depends on it - I depend on it (proprietary formats, protocols etc.). Windows is a virus.
My fault? Yeah, that's hilarious.
"The commission's case is mainly focused on Microsoft's integration of Windows Media Player into the operationg system and the effects that has on the ability of Real Networks and Apple to get their rival players used."
I buy an Apple System, it comes with OS-X, Quicktime, iChat, iMail, and Safari. In order for most software made to run on a mac (games, office software, design software etc...) you need to have the latest version of OS-X AND Quicktime installed. I can install Media Player for OS-X, I can install various Divx Codecs, and Mozilla/IE.
I buy a Dell, it comes with XPSP2, Direct X, Windows Media player, MSN Messenger, Outlook Express, and IE. In order for games to run I need the latest version of Direct X. In order for my software to run I need the latest version of XP. I can install Quicktime, Real Player, and various Divx Codecs. I can also install Mozilla.
I build a system. It comes with nothing. I install Redhat, Suse, or Mandrake Linux (your noobie friendly flavors) with the default settings it installs the OS, some Open Office app, some media player and some chat program.
Now what is the problem with what MS is doing?
The argument I here is that because Media Player is incorporated it makes it hard for Real Player and other players to work. However on my PC at home Quicktime and Real Player work just fine. If I don't feel like using Media Player I simply change the file associations. This can be done from the noob level of simply clicking the "box" that says "have quicktime play all these file types" and automagically every media file will try to open in quicktime thereafter.
If what MS is doing is so bad, why doesn't anyone go after Apple? I love my G5, but Apple has a lot stronger arm and closed mind when it comes to what is incorporated with OSX and what can be made to run on it than anyone else.
Ave Molech Setting
Bribing politicians can't get them out of this one.
You will be surprised, but not in a good way.
In capitalistic societies monopolies are treated differently since the market has no longer power or its power is sorely diminished to deal with a rampant monopolist.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"I chose to run windows. I also chose to run OS/2 and i also chose to run Linux and Solaris."
The average American (or European) consumer is completely unaware of what OS/2, Linux or Solaris are. The very fact that you've even heard of these and have even gone as far as to try them out excludes you from the average consumer pool. The average consumer is only aware of MS, and if MS is allowed to proceeed in it's tactics, will only be aware of Windows Media Player for playing mp3's/video files, and only IE for browsing. How many people at your workplace/University equate the internet with iexplore.exe?
"I chose to use Internet explorer and i chose to use Netscape and now i choose to use Firefox."
See argument above. There's a huge barrier to entry for Netscape/Firefox given that iexplore comes bundled with the OS and sits on the damn Start Menu. Most consumers, perhaps up until now, have equated the WWW = iexplore.
"I also chose to use windows media player over everything else and i agree that the media player should be fully integrated with the OS because that is a feature we as in windows users request just as sound in kde/linux is done."
That's a false analogy. There are hundreds of Linux distributions and they all CHOOSE what media player to install with their distribution. Also, the Linux kernel itself doesn't even include a media player. It's possible to get a Linux distribution with 4-5 media players installed or none; is that possible with Windows?
"I don't want the EU suing so anoter crappy business (Real Audio) can get in with spyware and take over my pc..."
That's fine. Don't install it then; that's your choice. Give the rest of the consumers the choice not to have WMP installed also.
"Please tell me how microsoft has and continues to stimmy competition, the market and harm consumers?"
MS HAS harmed consumers by effectively killing Netscape and stopping browser innovation since basically Firefox came out. It has bullied small businesses using the BSA; get busted if you don't run an entirely MS shop, or have even one unlicensed computer? Thousands of computers riddled with spyware and worms because consumers are unaware of a viable choice?
"Tell me again how the government suing microsoft in this case and the others will benefit the tax payers paying for these suits?"
I'm pretty sure the final verdict that's in the hundreds of millions of Euros will cover the cost of this verdict. The increased competition and innovation as a result of MS no longer being allowed to abuse it's power in at least one continent I'm sure has economic benefit also.