Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Fails to Comply With EU Requirements
sebFlyte writes "ZDNet is reporting the news that the EU has rejected Microsoft's attempt to wriggle out of it's legal obligation to open up Windows protocols. Microsoft was attempting to bypass the regulation by offering a license totally incompatible with the GPL and which has an absurdly high fee attached. If Microsoft don't come up with a solution that the EU finds acceptable, then they can be fined $5m a day. They've also got some commentary on why Microsoft's behaviour cannot be allowed to stand." The BBC has commentary as well.
$5 million a day? Big deal. Remember in the People vs Larry Flynt how the court fined him $10,000 a day until he complied with their request. $5 million a day is something like 1.8 billion a year. Somehow I think Microsoft would pay that just so that they can remain in control. From their point of view, the value of keeping their protocols closed is worth more than $1.8 billion a year. After all, they have enough cash in the bank to pay that fine for the next
15 years.
The EU would have to charge them $50 million a day before they'd really
care.
Microsoft seems to be pretending that they are dealing with a customer, not a goverment. This kind of tactic will shoot them in the foot because they are ignoring the sovereignty of the EU. The EU won't put up with it since it will dilute their power.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
If Microsoft don't come up with a solution that the EU finds acceptable, then they can be fined $5m a day.
I have no illusions that Microsoft would actually pay that - it's an exorbitant amount.
The worst punishment the EU can mete out is to bar Microsoft from doing business in participating countries.
If/when that happens, what will European Average Joe consumer reaction be?
The coolest voice ever.
As a reminder, Microsoft makes up to $ 1 billion of profit per month according to Cringely.
$ 5m per day is something like $ 1.8 billion dollars per year. So, it hurts bad, but it's still something Microsoft can afford.
This being said, the EU could also decide to slowly raise the fines over time. That would probably make Microsoft move. I just hope they are not going to introduce Windows XP Starter Edition in Europe... Scratch that, I hope MS is going to do just that, since that would make many europeans switch to Linux.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Its the law of the land. No one is forcing MS to do business in the EU
Because it's been solidly demonstrated that if you don't do something very large to dissuade Microsoft, they will ignore you.
In this case they were told they needed to open up their protocols and stop being anti-competitive, or they'd face something like this.
In their usual way, they've decided that charging you large amounts of money to have access to those protocols, as well as preventing everyone in the open source arena from actually using this stuff was what was called for. Basically this violates the letter and spirit of the ruling against Microsoft.
The US DoJ basically stopped pursuing this when Bush got into office. At least the EU actually has the smarts to actually enforce their rulings.
It is entirely against the long-term interests of the entire industry for Microsoft to say 'you can't write software that talks to our software'. All Your Base is not acceptable in this case.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I really don't understand. Microsoft created a product. They're under no obligation to release any information about that product to anyone. This is the equivilent of Joe Blow's newfangled Linux distro being released and Joe Blow being sued because he's not providing free tech support. If you don't like it, DON'T USE IT! Nobody is forcing you to use a Microsoft operating system. Yes, they've got some nasty business practices. Freedom of choice: Does it mean nothing anymore?
These fines are being levied by the same EU Commission that is forcing through changes in EU patent law designed to allow companies like Microsoft to profit handsomely? Which EU commission shows all signs of being... how can I put this politely... bribed by Microsoft?
Why do I feel we are watching a made-for-public-viewing spectacle that will ultimately result in a trivial fine being paid and the continuation of business as usual?
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Just so as we are clear, the EU is more of a governing body or confederation, not a government. Most people (esp. in the UK) think that most EU politicians sit on their behinds making up laws nobody needs or wants (such as the standard length of bananas). However to be fair we do tend to jump to the EU especially when it comes to Human Rights.
Quite frankly tho, IMHO Microsoft will have more problems with this than just owing cash. I believe they have a reputation to uphold, and that is worth more than $5 million dollars a day.
"So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
You're making it sound as it the EU arbitrarily decided to start fining MS. There are laws that have been passed through democratic process. MS was tried in a court of law and found guilty of violating those laws. Now they're guilty of failing to abide by the court's ruling. If they want to do business in the EU they need to comply with the law, or they can stop doing business there.
The EU won't put up with it since it will dilute their power.
Sure they will. Microsoft bought Ireland cheap, raised their standard of living, and thereby leveraged their influence over the European Union. This has already paid off, and will continue to do so. Take a look at how software patents have been literally shoved down the Europeans' throats, against their will, despite overwhelming votes against them in the token democratic portions of the EU governance regime, despite opposition from most EU members, and despite protocols that required the issue to be handled differently than it was.
If the EU will bend over for software patents, something that is going to wipe out their technology sector almost completely, simply because a couple of big foreign companies (Microsoft and IBM) can buy a small economy outright and throw money around to depress or accelerate other economies, they'll certainly bpw to a (proportionately) minor quibble such as this.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I for one applaud the large fine. I have seen corporations shrug and pay lesser fines, and cheerfully remain in violation of court rulings... especially in antitrust cases. This sends a clear signal to MS to comply now, not after an appeal, not after more tactics to wiggle out of the ruling while appearing to comply, not after more stall tactics.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I think a neat way for them to "spend" the Microsoft fines would be to put up bounties on open source software and features that the commission deems valuable to itself and the EU.
Inconceivable!
Technically, it is available to anyone, or any group, willing to pay the licensing fee. I think the EU is overstepping its bounds by requiring the information to be completely public. They are basically pandering to their own OSS projects and pushing their own agenda. They obviously want the APIs to be open so that they can fund OSS groups to compete with Microsoft. It's an understandable line of thinking, but that doesn't make it not based on some agenda that benefits their own businesses (which, of course, is a natural thing for them to do).
The next step for the EU is simply to declare that MS has to release all of its source for the OS into GPL licensing to close the deal. Since they are a legal body, they could simply declare that Microsoft has to go completely GPL or they can't sell Windows in Europe anymore... what could anyone then do about that?
But the problem is that the consumers DON'T have a choice. Hence the term MONOPOLY. M$ has been found guilty of using its MONOPOLY position in the market to leverage other competitors out which leaves consumers with no choice.
This is precisely the case in which the 'guns of government' need to be used and it is long overdue.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Sure, right! What are the chances that big government will actually apply a fine towards fixing the problem the fine was levied for? Like ZILCH?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
BS. Plain and simple. The EU said that everything had to be compatiblewith the various licenses out there; if it is only available under a CLOSED SOURCE license then various free and open source projects are stymied. The EU, I believe, has no real interest in whether Windows is released under a proprietary license or no, it just wants other projects to be able to be compatible if they choose.
How to use coral cache: http://slashdot.org.nyud.net:8090/~oscartheduck
Tyrannical? I'm sorry but the Law is the Law, and Microsoft have broke it in a place where they wish to do business. They have the option to obey the law and do business or not do business at all.
The fine is becasue they are not obeying the law still. So how is this abusing Microsoft? They're making a big deal about legality of software and media and patents etc.. They can't want the law in one case and not in the other.
While it's a good thing that the network protocols are being ordered open, I've never understood why this was chosen. Microsoft has a much stronger hold on the desktop then they do on the server because this is where their lock-in tactics have worked much better.
So why not order the office formats to be opened up instead? These formats is what is forcing people to stick with microsoft upgrade through upgrade. If OpenOffice could flawlessly open word and excel documents there is no doubt in my mind that a mixed microsoft/non-microsoft environment would work much better.
Anyone know why the network protocols were targeted? Or if there is any chance that the office formats will be forced open too?
Failing to learn from history dooms you to repeat it.
Imagine two processes. First,you take microsoft, and fine them five million dollars a day. Next you take a pound of lead and let it gradually evaporate vai proton decay.
Q: Which will decay to half of its value first -- the mass of the lead or Microsoft's cash reserves?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You see nothing wrong with using the tyrannical force of the state to take money from one party to give to another?
I'll remember that argumenet the next time I have a speeding ticket.
The local government uses its tyrannical power to fine me and then give that money to the local school system or some other party.
Microsoft has defied a court order here. They should be fined. Or maybe you believe that all global megacorps or indeed anyone should be able to defy court orders with impunity?
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
First off, this is NOT meant as flamebait, but, Microsoft is an AMERICAN company. Why should it give one whit what the EU finds, thinks, or wants?
Because if Microsoft wants to do business anywhere they need to obey the law.
If I were Bill Gates, I would simply pull all of my product out of Europe and laugh at them.
It's rather hard to "pull out" a product which has no physical existance.
Due to the market penetration of Windows, the EU would come crawling back, begging for Windows marketing to be reinstated.
Except that Microsoft can't remove all copies of Windows form the EU. They can't stop those copies being copiable. It's also virtually certain that there are plenty of people within the EU who could disable any "copy protection" within a short period of time and/or work out ways to have support requests come from somewhere other than the EU.
My basic point is that, as an American, why should we give a flying flip what the EU wants?!
Similarly why should the rest of the planet care much about what the US happens to think or want.
I make the assumtion, of course, that you are American.
Without going to far into the text of your comment, we (in Europe) have generally the same feeling about US litigation which seems to continuously pour beyond your borders.
So my point also would be that "as a European, why should we give a flying flip what the US wants? It's not like they really have any enforcement powers beyond their borders."
(The answer of course, is that if you want to trade overseas, we have to respect the purchasing country/states laws. Either that or everyone trades nationally and our respective economies collapse)
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Why in the world would the EU find this to be a big problem? Unlike a "real" property (like oil), if Microsoft did something like that, the EU could simply make all Microsoft's products available as public domain. There'd be a lot of EU support vendors who could provide support too.
Companies who depend on intellectual property laws to support their business model must not, under any circumstances, piss off the legislators who write such laws - or they will find out exactly how ephemeral their business model is.
So Let Me ask you this. If Ms releases its network protocols to the public, do you think that will cause even more exploits to be discovered and put the average use at more of a risk to being hacked.
Of course not. Network traffic that is hackable should be put behind firewalls. Opening the protocols simply allows other operating systems and products to use the same protocols as Windows does.
All of the network protocols that Unix/Linux uses are open to the public!
In a statement, Microsoft also said that it is important to strike a balance between the "private interests of Microsoft" and the "public interests of Commission with respect to implementation of the [antitrust] decision". Isn't that what got them into trouble to begin with?
Microsoft WAS found to be guilty of abusing it's monopoly position in the United States. However, there is one major difference, all the remedies to the court findings got conveniently tossed away when the administration changed back in 2000.
So basically MS was found guilty, but had to do almost nothing as a remedy.
The EU just reaffirmed the same things since the United States in this case didn't have the balls to enforce the findings. Plain and Simple.
As soon as they realise that they are paying $1.8 Billions a year to efficient competition they will comply.
Normally I believe in a proper argument, critically deconstruct their views, burn their straw men and quote facts to back your corner.
But today I typed "rm *.f" rather than "rm *.o", I'm tired and hung over - so I'll be brief:
You're a fucking moron
because european companies are subjected to US fines, too, if they do business in the US and violate american laws - it's normal, and it's good that way, otherwise all those companies would incorporate on some pacific island without any law and export to all other countries avoiding the rules the local economy has to abide to.
oh, and btw. the EU fines european companies all the time, it just happens that we don't have a high-profile monopolist who breaks the rules in software business over here, so you probably just didn't notice it.
You might be able to patent some aspects of a network protocol, but probably very few in this case since there's so much prior art and similarity.
You would certainly be able to copyright an implementation of a network protocol, but no-one is asking Microsoft to provide source code.
Microsoft appears to be wanting to protect "IP" which does not consist of patents or copyright, but "trade secrets".
The EU has decided the "trade secrets" need to be disclosed to prevent an abusive monopoly. Microsoft is attempting to limit the disclosure by placing constraints on the copyrights of the licensees: this affects the licensees rights to do whatever they want with their own code and therefore perpetuates the abuse.
The EU isn't asking Microsoft to give up its patents or copyrights; unfortunately for Microsoft, it doesn't have any real protection for its network protocols other than the current lack of documentation, hence the foot-dragging.
i know there aren't a lot of microsoft supporters/fans around these parts (understatement of the year) ... but isn't
$5M a day a bit, oh i dunno, steep?
Consider what Microsoft has actually done to get that penalty... This has nothing to do with failing to open up their protocols, and everything to do with all but telling the EU the go fornicate with itself.
Governments don't like that - If one company gets away with it, the rest will join in very quickly.
However, in this situation, Microsoft still has one rather drastic course of action left... Totally pull out of all EU countries, block them from any updates, then push out a service pack that addresses a few dozen critical exploits, including "proof of concept" code to "demonstrate" those exploits. Overnight, Windows becomes impossible to run without an instant rooting anywhere in Europe.
On the down side (from MS's perspective), this would greatly boost Linux support. But the cost to change over, and the damage that would occur during the transition could add up to enough to crash a few smaller economies (imagine the IRS, the DMV, and the FBI's records all vanishing at once to get an idea of the potential cracker-induced damage).
Kinda scary to think that a single company could destroy whole governments with just a few carefully-planned steps. And THAT justifies the $5M fine per day - Fear that Microsoft might have realized just how much power they have, not just in a monetary sense, but in a critical infrastructure sense.
And if anyone needs a better argument for Open Source, I can't think of one...
The closest thing to a constitution in many European countries, starting with the Magna Carta on down, often preserves rights similar to those preserved by the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Thus, "Fifth Amendment" was likely intended to read "Fifth Amendment and foreign counterparts."
Nah, Microsoft doesn't have that power. For one thing, the US government wouldn't put up with it (too many other powerful companies would be hurt). For another, MS source code isn't exactly secret, just illegal to use. The EU could create a company for maintenance, give them all the MS soruce code that's ever been leaked, give them the resources to reverse-engineer anything that hadn't been leaked, and then engage in predatory dumping of the MS OS knockoff in all possible markets.
Attacking the critical infrastucture of a government is an act of war. The EU can't respond with physical violence, but they wouldn't need to. It would be costly, no doubt, but in the end it's the EU that would be left standing.
Unless, of course, the voters in the EU actually sided with Microsoft.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
All this arguing about $5 million per day and why should MS care what the EU thinks is completely missing the point. Mega multi-nationals like MS are the servants of capital markets. 95% of the time, the markets don't give a shit what kind of trouble a company has if the profits are rolling in as expected. But, trouble like getting shut out of a market the size of the EU would be disaster. The markets would punish MS severely.
A company that can't do business in the EU is not a global company, and their growth prospects would be drastically reduced. Remember that there's nothing personal here. The stock is worth the market's estimation of all future profits discounted for inflation, capital cost, risk, etc. $5 million a day in fines would have a much lower impact on MS' stock price. That's because the fine is quantified, predictible and likely short-term. But to be shut out of a market the size of the EU is unprecidented in modern corporate history. No corporate leader could possibly risk such an event. Imagine the shareholder lawsuits if MS stock price fell because they refused to comply with a the law in a juristiction the size of the EU. MS would knuckle under far before such a thing could happen.
That is punishing MS twice (fine + funding their own competitors).
Sounds like the carrot *and* the stick.
Nothing else has had the slightest effect on their criminal actions, so why is this a problem exactly?
Kinda scary to think that a single company could destroy whole governments with just a few carefully-planned steps. And THAT justifies the $5M fine per day - Fear that Microsoft might have realized just how much power they have, not just in a monetary sense, but in a critical infrastructure sense.
Not really. For one thing, governements and any important businesses will have daily (or more frequent) backups of anything important, redundancy, and also a variety of operating systems (even if these are not official). What they could do is halt any progress for a while.
They could cause much pain, but that would be a suicidal move -- everyone in the entire world would switch away from Microsoft as soon as anything like this happens. No one would risk such a catastrophe happening to them.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
"$1.8 billion a year would be a big boost to free software if an EU agency were to funnel it into free software development. That would anger Microsoft more than increasing the fine would. "
It's pathetic how people here claim to value freedom, but have no problem taking away someone's freedom when they don't like what they're doing. So now you want private companies to pay for your free software and use the force of govt. to get what you want. So much for freedom.
Vote for Pedro
You are a perfect example of why most of the rest of the world considers the average American to be a pompous, arrogant, ignorant, a-hole. Which is why, as you may have noticed, you've been modded as flamebait, even though you claimed not to be.
Due to the market penetration of Windows, the EU would come crawling back, begging for Windows marketing to be reinstated.
Any country or group of countries in their right mind would consider such a thing a virtual ATTACK on said country(ies) survival and economic prosperity, due to the monopolistic market penetration of Windows. As far as I (an American) am concerned, the countries in question would be well within their rights and responsibilities to their citizens to terminate all local copyrights, patents and trademarks owned by Microsoft, to allow the country to continue to supply itself with the dominant Microsoft software (for survival) while they work on moving everything over to OS X, Linux and other alternative software that won't allow them to be brought to their knees by a single corporation ever again.
The fact that the EU could be literally forced to come begging a single corporation to come back and do business with them after said corporation basically committed the equivalent of a terrorist attack on their member nations is exactly why monopolists cannot be allowed to abuse their monopolies, and why monopolies should be discouraged from even existing. Nothing should have that much power over the economy of an entire nation.
Do you not realize that if they have this power over the EU, they have the same power over the US? How is that acceptable just because they are an American-based company? Would it be cool if Microsoft just "pulled out" of the government software market, refused to sell to the US government and stopped giving them any service or updates? Hopefully you would be outraged at any American company that did such a thing, especially a company like Microsoft that wields monopoly power in our economy. It would essentially be an attack on the government's ability to run and protect our precious America.
The fact that you think it would be A-OK for an American company to do such a thing as long as it doesn't do it in the US, is absolutely frightening. You come off like you think God made Americans in His own image and we are the Chosen People who can do no wrong. You think any American company can go anywhere in the world and do whatever it wants without regard to local laws, and without ever being fined for breaking the law, just because it's a US-based company? And then you sit back and wonder why so much of the population of Earth hates Americans with a passion.
My basic point is that, as an American, why should we give a flying flip what the EU wants?! It's not like they really have any enforcement powers beyond their member's borders...
As Americans, "we" don't really care what the EU wants. But if you want to GO to the EU and do business IN THEIR COUNTRIES, you need to abide by their rules, just like their companies need to abide by our rules when they do business in the US. Is there something complicated about that? They aren't trying to enforce anything beyond their own borders! They are merely dictating the behavior of Microsoft's branches in their own area of the world.
In their part of the world, where Microsoft, being a multinational corporation, very much desires to continue doing business, Microsoft has been convicted of abusing its monopoly position in the market (breaking the law). They've been told to stop violating the local laws. They refused, so the EU imposed some fines and remedies. Microsoft in effect thumbed their nose at the fines and remedies imposed by the courts, so the EU is going to impose more fines, as is their right to do in their own part of the world. Again, is there something complicated here?
I always wonder how people even get ideas like yours into their heads. If you gave it just a smidgen of thought those ideas SHOULD self-destr
It's pathetic how people here claim to value freedom, but have no problem taking away someone's freedom when they don't like what they're doing.
It's not that we just don't like what Microsoft is doing. Remember that Microsoft has been convicted of abusing its operating system monopoly in violation of law. I know what "liberty" is, and I know that "due process of law" (and foreign counterparts) is justification for taking it away.
So now you want private companies to pay for your free software
Is it any worse than having convicted individuals do x-hundred hours of community service?