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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
[ but isn't $5M a day a bit, oh i dunno, steep? ]
Not really, they had a choice. They could have complied with the spirit of the initial order and done what was required. Instead they chose to flagerantly flout the order to try to make the order benefit themselves, which is an insult to the court. They are now in a worse situation as they do not have any sympathy of the court. They only have themselves to blame.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
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...
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!
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.
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.
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..
The WTO doesn't allow fines to be used to fund competition.
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.
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