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.

Comments

Interesting..

[danheskett]

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 is a lot of dough

[tepples]

$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.

Re:Like Larry Flynt

[Xner]

They can impose fines up to a certain percentage of gross. I have a feeling they still have some wiggle room to increase them if MS decides to play the "pay and carry on as usual" game.

The EU is slow and undecisive, but like all huge burocratic institutions, once it gets moving it has a certain inertia.

and....

[commo1]

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.

Interesting isn't it...

[korielgraculus]

That the EU has the right to demand 5% of GLOBAL revenue, rather than European revenue, especially as the agreement they reached isn't even applicable outside of Europe.

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?

Re:MS won't pay the fine - just watch.

[sweatyboatman]

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.

NTFS read & WRITE in the future?

[teksno]

could this mean that we'll see linux distros with NTFS write in the near future.....

Charles Foster Kane

[IainHere]

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.

Stats not really comparable

[henni16]

Often people forget that countries use very different methods to calculate the unemployent rate and are comparing apples and oranges
One major point is who you count; examples:

• people who want work, but can't get a job?
• people who don't want to work and live of benefits/social security?
• people who were laid off into pension earlier than necessary?
• close to the point above: people who won't get a job because they are regarded as too old by HR (maybe >35 or 40 years..)
• people who can't work because of health problems?
• people who are in governmental work programs (i.e. retraining programs)?
• how about people that are jobbing here and there, mybe have more than one part-time job?
• related to that: who is counted as "self employed"?

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..