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).
MS was unable to comment because of their shock that they were unable to buy a court.
http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtm
has some of the better comments from the bigwigs at Redmond..
My favourite being:
-if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
Surely a media player is an integral part of the operating system, just like a web browser, some card games, and a paper clip.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
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
Hasn't it been 120 days already, or do they get to start the clock now? (again)
If the eds had used my submitted write-up instead (mumble, mutter) then you'd have known that this is only the second-highest court in the EU. Although the ruling was pretty damning, it's still possible that MS will appeal to the European Court of Justice, who could overturn the decision. Fortunately, given the feeling everywhere else in Europe, this doesn't seem likely, but the air isn't completely clean yet.
BTW, if it stands, this is a hit against MS on two major counts: the original ruling required them to open up various information for interoperability purposes, and to produce a version of Windows without Media Player integrated.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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)
If people want windows with a media player thats fine. They can pay the probably very small (I'd imagine about £2) that a "with media player" copy of windows will be. Or downloaded it from Microsoft's website.
The point is, and the point that the European court has decided on, is that you CANNOT USE A MONOPOLY YOU ALREADY HAVE TO UNFAIRLY TRY TO GET ANOTHER ONE.
Repeat after me. Microsoft can give away or sell media player. What they can't do is use their monopoly on operating systems to aid them getting one in media players. Those are the rules you have to play by once you are in a monopoly position
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
"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.
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/
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
Gaining an edge by making yourself better is good. Gaining an edge by using your dominance to shut others out of the marketplace is bad. If Microsoft was just another software company, then yes, it would be fine to bundle their software. They're not. They're a monopoly. The rules are different for monopolies.
No, since Apple is not a monopoly.
Only one of those operating systems is a monopoly. And antitrust-law says that using your monopoly in one area to gain monopoly in other areas is against the law. MS used their OS-monopoly to gain monopoly in web-browsers. Now they tried to gain monopoly in the streaming-media markets, by using their OS-monopoly. And that is against the law.
I find it really surprising that some people simply do not "get it".
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
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?
Pack-ins have never meant monopolies.
A monopoly would be microsoft prohibiting real video from making a client. A monopoly would be blocking winDVD and powerdvd from market share (or any other add-on vendor)
Instead all of these companies making media players are making millions. Real is highly succesfull with Listen.com services, Windvd and powerdvd sell millions and infact WMP required a 3rd party purchased DVD program for playback and i'm sure that made people happy.
WMP 10 even offers competing stores in its player.
OS/2 had a media player befor Windows - was that a monopoly? The entire workplace shell was integrated as everything was an object in essence so while IBM shipped a standard plugin you chould choose to run whatever you wanted in the end run - no diference then microsoft.
Heck, IBM was also the first to ship a web browser with the OS.
OS/2 defigned more of the market then Microsoft could ever take credit for and just goes to prove that microsoft had better marketing and i'm sure some nasty tactics to win the market - however they're not being anti-competitive by including basic features as a part of the os.
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.
If you could uninstall all of WMP, there wouldn't be a problem. It would be a simple matter for Microsoft to make WMP an optional component; it certainly was in the past.
You can remove up2date from Redhat distros. Same thing for apt-get and Portage. But you can't remove WMP any more than you can remove IE from Windows. You're stuck with it. And having it on a server makes about as much sense as having IE on a server.
RedHat is not a monopoly.
Apple is not a monopoly.
Microsoft, however, are a convicted monopolist. When you're a monopoly, the rules are different and you can't use your monopoly desktop to legally "shut off the air supply" to competing vendors.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
The EU simply doesn't have the power to take any other remedy. They can't order that Microsoft be broken up because Microsoft is not a European company. Only the US can do that, and they haven't.
The best the EU can do is fine MS and order them to unbundle software. Personally, I'd like MS to have to unbundle *everything*, including Notepad, and leave it up to the OEM to decide what MS software to add (on an a la carte basis to the OEM) to their basic software load. So, for example, HP in Europe would be within their rights to install barebones Windows XP plus Firefox as the browser, but take the Microsoft components for other things - instead of being forced to bundle the entire lot as they are now.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
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?
I am not trying to flame you but - you are a complete idiot when it comes to economics or a troll. I have seen other somewhat intelligent posts from you, but this one actually puts the rest into context. You must be too young to remember the issues that MS has faced already.
Microsoft IS a monopoly. If you don't beleive me, look at the USDOJ findings of fact (specifically Section III, article 33) US vs. Microsoft of maybe this one, or for a slightly slanted, but nonetheless relevant take. I could add other links, but I will stop there for now. It doesn't matter if they have "active and serious competitors" (which would be Apple on a completely different platform, and Linux on x86), they have a large percentage of the marketplace which puts them into a monopoly position, ergo, they have to play by certain rules which are afforded to those in that position.
I have stated this before, Microsoft, regrdless of the fact there may be other Media Players - is using it's position in the marketplace, using it's existing monopoly to leverage it's weight into the new "Media Player" market. That market not only entails the software on the Windows box - and subsequently keeps other operating systems out of the game by tying their media player, drm and codecs to their WIndows operating system. It now also allows them to leverage the umbiquity into other spinoff markets such as hardware media players (dvd players, etc), and distribution of digital media (theatres, etc).
Once they use this position of dominance to weasel their way into these other emerging markets, which is an obvious "next step" which thay have already started, they do nothing other than solidify their Windows buisness. It's using one's dominant position in the market to break into other markets which is what the EU is trying to stop and I commend them for that.
The US tried to do it in regards to the internet browser and did, then the decision was struck down by a certain newly elected government at the time. I am glad that politics aren't getting in the way this time and someone is putting their foot down.
Party?!? What kind of party is this? Where's the damn keg?
Virtus Junxit Mors Non Separabit