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.
The little blurb posted makes it sound like the EU ordered MS to create a license that was compatible with the GPL.
Is that the case? I can't find anything suggesting that the EU "named names" by saying the GPL or any specific license.
Anyone have any more insight? Did the EU really order MS to be compatible in this regard with a specific license, or is this just a poorly worded writeup (or is it just me)?
$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.
The EU is slow and undecisive, but like all huge burocratic institutions, once it gets moving it has a certain inertia.
Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
Why do so many governments show so much patience with a company already convicted of a crime? $5 million a day? Ha! Everyone knows that's not going to hurt Microsoft. Make it $100 million dollars per day and we'll see results.
Judges and governments alike should yell "ENOUGH ALREADY!" and enforce the laws to the limit. Period. This is ridiculous.
The US Government should follow suit... no pun intended.
Seriously, in the global economy, trade similarities are going to become more and more important, especially with the US economy taking a very important second place to the EU. They will have to comply to trade. The US is no longer the bully hey once were.
Question for our US cousins, will this 5% be taken out of Microsoft before or after they pay US tazes? And how does it feel to be subsidising European justice?
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'.
It is entirely against the long-term interests of the entire industry for governments to say 'you must write software in ways we approve or we'll seize your revenue and/or exclude you from the marketplace'.
Let consumers decide what they want. If you don't like their decisions don't reach for the guns of government to get your way.
Should the EU block MS from selling their OSes, you can bet that the commodity machine market will quickly switch over to alternative OSes.
What's missing in wide-scale adoption of linux is a large commitment by retailers to sell and support Linux-based systems.
The average user doesn't care if he/she's running windows or linux or OSX or Commodore64. They don't care if their browser is IE or Mozilla. They just want the computer to provide the tools they need.
If they can browse the web, send emails, upload photos from their camera, and open files from work they'll be happy.
In the short-run, there might be some headaches for consumers. But in the long-run the result would be a huge install base for linux/OSX.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
MS should not have to open up their code if they do not want to. If the general public in Europe and the government have issue with this then they don't have to use MS products now do they.
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
Indeed, what IS wrong with the EU?
The EU as a government entity has the right to
require that software they purchase meet certain
terms and conditions, including interoperability.
MSFT's response regarding the publishing of their
API's and specification by way of an encumbered
AND expensive license violates the EU's stated
requirements. Nothing more.
What I DO find rather interesting is the stance
the EU has taken in regard to MSFT's monopolistic
ploy, versus the EU's apparent infatuation with
the adoption of software patents. There would
appear to be a disconnect between these two
conflicting mindsets. So now I am confused...
As far as the penalty of $5 Million per day fine
is concerned, any judiciary anywhere in the West
would/should consider the penalty appropriate to
weighed benefit of ignoring a judgement. The
"carrot" for MSFT is continued access to the EU
marketplace, so the "stick" should be big enough
to balance the scales. Court rooms in the USA
do this all the time when considering the posting
of bond to offset a defendant's "flight risk".
>...I would force MS to make Office for Linux, WMP for Linux, IE for Linux.
Great. Given their great penchant for allowing every line of their code to operate with full administrator privileges we'll shortly thereafter be able to "enjoy" the wonderful Windows experience on Linux (i.e. spyware, adware, viruses etc.)
So thanks but no thanks. Open Office, Abi Word, Koffice, Rhythmbox, Xine, Totem, Konqueror and Firefox (to name but a few) work just fine already.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
Microsoft seems to be pretending that they are dealing with a customer, not a goverment.
Probably because they are used to dealing with government in the US.
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.
Assuming Microsoft cannot bribe their way around it.
As an American and a Windows user, I'm ashamed at how the American government has dealt with Microsoft. If someone else can do a better job, then I'm all for it. ~1.8 billion dollars every year flowing out of the country is very little to pay for a chance at better protection from monopolistic anticompetitive business such as Microsoft.
If I were Bill Gates, I would simply pull all of my product out of Europe and laugh at them.
Yes, but you're not Bill Gates. Microsoft is interested in global domination. As I pointed out in my earlier post, the EU is BIGGER than the US. Why would Microsoft pull out of their biggest market? It would hurt them immensely and their shareholders certainly wouldn't like it.
FTA: "So far, you don't need a licence to write software for Microsoft operating systems."
I don't know why the idea of Microsoft charging people a licensing fee to develop software for Windows never crossed my mind before.
Perhaps Microsoft wants a class-system of software development for their OS. If you want to write simple things, no charge. If you want to make data-related queries to services like Active Directory or hardware, you pay a small licensing fee. If you want to take advantage of the latest and greatest features (especially when Microsoft has a competing product in the area such as Exchange Server) you will pay through the nose.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Because here in the U.S., they basically can.
could this mean that we'll see linux distros with NTFS write in the near future.....
Fining Microsoft a few million dollars reminds me of something Orson Welles said as Citizen Kane:
You're right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year.
You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place - in 60 years.
After all in England (UK in fact) we even do that to parents who allow their children to play truant and the directors failing blatantly to comply must surely be a more serious offence.
And after a while, the EU will start doing things which /will/ harm microsoft permanently... simply because microsoft thought of it as an additional tax.
/really/ hurt... maybe even put them out of business if they are too slow to respond.
- How about a forced complete sales stop for microsoft until they comply? (hurts)
- Or forced sale/destruction of property? (patents, source code, locations, shares, etc.) (irritating to very very painful).
- Or how about a worldwide freeze on all their assets? (company/government killer).
Trust me, if microsoft still ignores the EU after that daily fine, they can expect something which will
If you don't believe for one second that Microsoft's top 10 shareholders won't oust Bill and Steve for letting them throw away $millions in fines every year, you're naive. It's one thing to gamble on "Potential losses to competition", it's another thing to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Not having open standards hasn't stopped the Samba team. Reverse engineering only makes it harder to do something. It's not prevention. Better to concede and use that $5m per day to innovate/morph faster than the competition can keep up, which is what MS has been doing the past 10 years.
Who knows if they can keep it up however. I have a feeling WindowsXP is the end of the line for many people for the better part of this decade...
One major point is who you count; examples:
That's one "funny" problem in Germany right now:
Due to a part of a federal law change (meant to reduce unemployment) Germany's rate is jumping right now:
municipalities are "reclassifying" recipients of social security that in reality can't or won't work as people who are able to work (=can _in_theory_ work at _some_ job for at least 3 hours a day), upping the current unemployment rate big time.
The money is about the same, so why are they doing such a silly bureaucratic thing, binding even more resources meant to help willing people find a job, lessening their chances?
A: Because of the new law, unemployment insurance is now payed from the federal fund and municipalities are only responsible for social security.
In some areas more than 99% of former social security recipients are suddenly able to work again.
It's really a wonder! Must be Jesus doing a "Germany 2005 Tour" or something like that..
Now, who didn't see that one coming..
Now you're saying Bill Gates is trying to become exempt from taxes...
If he's putting himself above royalty, we have a problem.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)