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.
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?
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.
I was wondering how Brown was going to afford those bus passes for the elderly. He's a sneaky one, that Chancellor.
This comment was formatted for readability, but I forgot the line break tags
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
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.
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.
I checked on Bill's /. poll response. Evidently, he's not interested in Emporor. He's holding out for Kwisatz Haderach.
No, the EU didn't say MS had to GPL any program of their own. The EU just said they had to license their protocols and APIs to everyone, in a non-discriminating way.
Again, this doesn't mean that Windows had to be suddenly GPLed, but that the APIs should be available to _anyone_ who wants to write a program for Windows. Hardly an unreasonable demand, don't you think?
Well, MS basically thought it was smart and slapped a license on those protocols and APIs that basically said you can't share that info with anyone, or show your code to anyone. Basically a legalese way of saying "ok, but you can't use those specs in an OSS program."
Which basically already places a rather unreasonable restriction, when the whole idea in the first place was to make that info available to everyone.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Normally you would be right, that MS should not be forced to give up trade secrets or patents, etc., but if you look at the facts of the case, it is not what it appears.
See, it works like this, MS is a vertical monopoly, and therefore they also develop software for their OS. If they use their superior position in the OS arena to help build their own applications, they are abusing their monopoly vertically.
That means, that if they use hidden or secret procedure calls, etc. to give their software an advantage, they are abusing their monopoly and therefore should be punished for it.
Remember, its not illegal to have a monopoly, but it is illegal to abuse that position.
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?
Your still free to choose. The EU is not a fully capitalist system they do not like monopolies and have decided to put some checks in there power. Thats what governments do. MS does not have to do business in those nations but if it does it has to play by there rules. Governments are not people they are not clients they can change the rules in the middle and get away with it. They shold be the ballance to corperate greed, after all MS does not have it's own army yet.
No sir I dont like it.
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...
Stick Balmer in a Room with RMS.
;)
Make Balmer listen to RMS until all problems are sorted.
Should take about 30 second, oh or Balmers head may explode.
Incorrect... Anyone can be Knighted (however non Bitish citzens recieve an 'honourary knighthood')but he is NOT allowed to have the title Sir Bill
Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
Me? Being forced to use Microsoft Windows? No.
I am not, because I build my own computers.
Millions of others who don't know how to build a computer and aren't willing to go to some small builder for them being forced to use(or at least buy) Microsoft Windows? Yes.
Think I'm lying? Try to get a Linux home PC(or laptop) from Dell, HP, Toshiba, or Gateway.
It's known as the "Microsoft Tax" for a reason.
European Union Anti-trust measure? HA HA!
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
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 !
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.
They're not being asked to open up their code. They're being asked to provide what amounts to API's. From TFA:
Microsoft agreed to create a server interoperability licence that would allow rival makers of server software to write applications that can "achieve full interoperability" with Windows client and server operating systems on "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms".
The commission is also concerned that open source vendors are "excluded" from the licence agreement. The spokesman said it is only asking Microsoft to provide the protocols necessary to build products that are interoperable with its servers and is not asking for it to reveal its source code.
I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
Doesn't you moron! DOESN'T!
No we did not Knight Bill Gates. Tony Bliar did it.
Yes, yes, yes, I know that strictly speaking the Queen does it on the advice of the PM but we all know how it really works.
No but, yeah but, no but...
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
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.
Everyone sing along!
Ooooooh, if it's meant to be possessive,
it's just I*T*S
But if it's meant to be a contraction,
it's I*T*APOSTRAPHE*S
Scallywag!
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.
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.
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.
That's "Sir William" to you, peasant.
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?
Why does an American Company have to be subjected to the fines and penalties of a foreign semi-socialistic union.
Because they are not an American company, they are an International company. When in Rome, obey the Roman laws or pay the consequences. Or do you think North Korean companies should be able to do business in the U.S. but not follow any of our laws while over here?
European companies would not allow such a sanction.
Several European companies have already been given fines nearly as high as this, and they have complied.
If Microsoft is truly a monopoly (and I am not suggesting that it is not), it should be taken up in the United States
It was, then MS bribed the Republican and the Democrats and the Justice department decided their punishment was to have nothing happen to them. Maybe if the U.S. government was not so corrupt the EU would not have to step in. Who elected them again?
The European Union wants to further degrade the U.S. dollar and establish itself as a superpower.
With 5 million a day? Umm, OK then. The U.S. is doing plenty to degrade its own currency. The EU does not need to help out. It's what happens when you put a lying coke addict, who has run several businesses into the ground, and has a vested interest in making money for himself in charge.
From the article, the EU doesn't want MS to release any source code. They wanted MS to release protocols in an nondiscriminatory way. MS sorta complied. They will release the protocols but will charge such a high price that any average Joe Schmo who wanted to write a app that used the protocols could not afford to even look. Also the terms of the license specifically exluded all open source. I think that the license specifically forbids the licensee from discussing the protocols to anyone other than MS.
Imagine if MS created a MSFTP application with a new fangled FTP protocol called MSFTP. The EU doesn't want MS to release the source code. They want MS to release the specifics of the MSFTP protocol so that a developer could use it to work with MSFTP.
Under the current terms of the MS license, the developer would have to pay $10K just to look at the protocol. But they would have to pay upfront. And they couldn't share any information about the protocol. And they have to pay for all MS protocols not just MSFTP.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
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.
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."
You know, I'm otherwise fairly pro-MS, by Slashdot standards. (In much the same way as being right wing in the EU still counts as left wing in the US, and viceversa.) I do believe that MS has all the right in the world to keep the Windows/Office/IE/whatever sources secret. I don't believe that making money or being a corporation is a capital sin. And worse yet, I do believe that they did make a better product.
(Or more precisely, that everyone else had a crappier product. Who was gonna win the OS wars? OS/2? Heh.)
But no, I don't think that API specs should be an internal secret for a company that produces both the OS and the apps.
Allowing the API conspiracy, for lack of a better word, is what allowed MS to be a monopoly in the first place. You can't expect any sort of even playing field as long as Windows contains parts written just for Word or for IE, and parts which can be deliberately broken when a competing product wants to use them.
E.g., the classic example is Novell. They wanted to make their own Netware servers too able to act as a domain controller, so you can choose whichever fits your general needs best for that role. Basically a fair competition on merits, no?
Microsoft didn't even pretend to play fair. It simply informed Novell that if Novell publishes such a product, MS _will_ break it. And they did. They messed with the APIs and with where does that part go inside Windows, until Novell gave up and cancelled the product.
And that's exactly that kind of anti-competitive behaviour that this ruling is supposed to prevent. Because anything else is just giving MS an official blessing to continue the monopolistic behaviour.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
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..
Unemployment in Scandinavia by Country, according to the CIA world factbook. Finland, Greenland and Iceland included as they're all at various times and places considered Scandinavian, at least that's what Wikipedia told me.
Sweden: 4.9% (2003 estimate)
Norway: 4.7% (2003 est.)
Denmark: 6.1% (2003)
Finland: 9% (2003 est.)
Iceland: 3.4% (2003 est.)
Greenland: 10% (2000 est.)
For comparison:
United States: 6% (2003)
United Kingdom: 5% (2003 est.)
Canada: 7.8% (2003 est.)
France: 9.7% (2003 est.)
Germany: 10.5% (2003 est.)
Netherlands: 3.7% (2003 est.)
Switzerland: 3.7% (2003 est.)
This link says that the European Union's unemployment rate as a whole is 8%. They report various numbers differently than the CIA world factbook, such as reporting Denmark's rate as "below 5 per cent." They also say:
"Still, there is however no obvious relationship between the degree of social protection and the unemployment rate today. For example, the Netherlands has returned to low unemployment while continuing to offer high social protection. Scandinavian countries have maintained both high social protection and a low natural rate of unemployment."
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.
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)
"$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?