Slashdot Mirror
Deadline Looming for Microsoft in Antitrust Case
gaijincory writes "The International Herald Tribune reminds us that the end of the month is Microsoft's deadline to comply with the European Commission's antitrust ruling. The fine for non-compliance? A cool $5 million per day."
If Microsoft is making more profit from its business practices than $5M a day, they've shown before that they'll happily pay the fine rather than change practices. Is domination of the European market worth $1.8 billion a year in fines?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
The one that can't even get member states to vote for the body's Constitution?
The EU is not a country, it is a conglomeration of countries. What is their actual power to enforce these laws? Especially seeing as how banning Microsoft on a continent-wide level would be an infringement of each country's right to self-determination.
I think that someone is going to get a huge wakeup call and I doubt it is going to be Microsoft this time.
"If Microsoft's final offer fails to satisfy the regulator, or if the company does not make its submission in time, the commission will write a formal letter to the company, outlining its concerns."
A formal letter? When did the world officially lose all its balls.
Unfortunately $5 million a day to Microsoft doesn't really mean much. A real way to get their attention would be to tell them comply or peddle your crap OS elsewhere.
Ubuntu: If at first you don't succeed, blindly slap a sudo in front of it
7 more reminders on slashdot's frontpage
This is almost like a personal vendetta on Microsoft directly from the EU. Noone really cares about the Microsoft anti-trust case in Europe, and the Windows XP 'Reduced Media Edition' is a flop.
It doesn't matter if the average European citizen doesn't care about this, or haven't even heard about it. The European Commission aren't involved in a popularity contest, they are supposed to enforce EU law.
Why would you buy a copy of a 'crippled' XP over a full-featured one.
"Vote Cuthulu. This time, why settle for the lesser evil?"
Its not like you cant just disable the features you don't want in XP (well, for the most part).
It is the "most part" that is a problem. Also, they are using their OS monopoly to also gain a online media monopoly. This is illegal.
Even the biggest Linux Zealot would need to admit they have come a long way since Windows 95 and are making improvements in terms of security, etc...
This is NOT about the quality of the products, this is about predatory business practices designed to enforce an unfair monopoly and kill innovation and competition.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
This is almost like a personal vendetta on Microsoft directly from the EU.
Excuse me? Forcing Microsoft to comply with a court order that resulted from them losing a lawsuit because they broke the law is some kind of personal vendetta?
Just because the EU doesn't roll over and let them off like the USA, it doesn't mean they have a personal vendetta. They just make sure people pay for their crimes, even if they are rich.
I wish the EU would, uh, 'bugger off' and leave MS alone to correct their ways.
Why on earth would Microsoft do that? Does a thief stop stealing if he knows he's not going to get punished?
Even the biggest Linux Zealot would need to admit they have come a long way since Windows 95 and are making improvements in terms of security, etc...
This isn't about software quality. This is about illegal anti-competitive actions.
Bill: Here's a $1,000,000 check for you and the jury
Judge: Ok, this antitrust case is over. Next.
would be in the form of free copies of WinXP and Office XP to schools in Europe. And a dinner with Blair while making the announcement, perhaps? -
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Just don't expect too much from Ms. Neelie Kroes. She has a questionable track record with respect to fair competition. If you speak dutch.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
They are a publicly traded company who's shares haven't gone up anytime recently. I'd give them a couple of weeks paying that sort of fine before they implode under the weight of shareholders.
They'll comply for two reasons.
First, and foremost, as a previous post said, they simply cant afford a 5 mil $ a day hit to the bottom line. I doubt they make 5 million+ a day in europe, and even if they did, not enough of it would be from their practices that they're being asked to stop.
Second, and almost equally important is a show of good faith that the EU wants to see from them. If they were to not comply, and/or perhaps refuse to pay the fine (extremely unlikely) that would end up with a lot of powerful people angry at them pretty quickly. My guess is that the US state department would lean on MSFT to cooperate w/ the EU. The U.S. simply cant afford to have one of it's premier companies acting in bad faith, as it would reflect poorly on Americans (whether that should be the case is another argument, but the fact is that many foriegners view America in part through it's major corporations, i.e. MSFT, McDonalds, CocaCola, etc)
From a buisness perspective, I expect them to have whatever needs to be done done by the deadline, or very close to it.
On the curiosity side, would someone care to outline exactly what it is the EU is demanding that MSFT do to 'comply'?
I think it's because Microsoft sells their product (at a high price) to consumers, has deals with computer chains (Dell, HP, IBM), and FULLY INTEGRATES their products into the OS. If you wanted to remove Firefox and install Opera, you could easily do so. Trying to remove IE results in utter failure, and any attempts to "Set Access Control & Defaults" to remove IE access also fail. MS just doesn't encourage the use of IE, it FORCES them to. That's the difference. MS doesn't have to offer an IE-free WinXP, just one the user can remove without breaking the whole system.
The main difference between the bundling of applications that goes into the making of any Linux distribution and the bundling of applications and services Microsoft does with Windows (XP especially) is that the bundling Microsoft does is irreversible, you cannot remove Windows Media Player without it seriously hindering the system, you cannot remove Internet Explorer without doing likewise. Windows Messenger often bothers many newcomers to XP who are unaware of how to remove it completely (Granted, a Google search will cure most any problem like that).
I would not mind at all that Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, or any of their other products, so long as they provide the ability to easily and safely remove those and not damage the system's base. They made the OS require all these applications as dependencies, they're more than able to re-work the sytem to accommodate competitors and make it much easier for them to settle in.
Another thing is that we have yet to see a Linux distributor sued for anti-competitive practices that are illegal.
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
It's not the same at all. Linux is represented by a large number of competing distributions. Linux distro makers can ship whatever media players they want by default, often several competing ones and they're not designed to lock you in to RHMF (Red Hat Media Format). So a distro is perfectly able to not install XMMS by default.
Is an OEM free to sell a Windows computer with a competing media player instead of Windows Media Player?
mod -1 redundant. Linux isn't a monopoly nor does it have a rule preventing ms from making a distro with windows media player on it. The ONLY reason why you won't find windows media player on Linux is because microsoft has chosen not to release it there. On the other hand, microsoft prevented vendors from shipping windows with other media players installed on it.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
WTF? you link to an entirely irrelevant article.
The spell Microsoft with a $ character
Then put together an entirely illogical argument: perhaps the applicants weren't *good* enough to work at Microsoft? Perhaps the students at MIT didn't *want* to work at Microsoft.
Then you get modded as "Interesting". Mods: what'cha smoking?
In Washington, at least, if you don't provide a defense, it ends up on your driving record as a conviction (not of a felony, just a traffic violation, which I think is a misd.), so even if the fine is a "piddly" amount, it's wiser to fight it in the long run than simply play Rich Guy and toss cash about.
Attack the man on his evil corporate practices, not being a smart citizen.
Well, the $5 million a day would be more than enough for the EU to pay those employees for doing nothing - or working for a competing (perhaps OSS) company and spreading bad PR about Microsoft.
Sure, MS, could conceivably do this (unless it is prohibited by EU law) - but if they did, Europeans would ditch Microsoft products in droves, and serious competing companies would spring up - perhaps even using Microsoft inside information. Payback's a bitch.
... and then they built the supercollider.
If it's one thing I have noticed that is similar amongst all of the super-rich, it is an overwhelming belief that they are being stolen from. It pervades every bit of their thinking and actions. They are well aware of the fact that no human being can work honestly and accumulate billions of dollars; they had to, somehow, convince or mislead others into working to line their pockets. Therefore, they are also well aware that people would love to use THEM in a similar manner.
I don't know.
How many MS investors believe that they're actually more predatory than Bill and Steve?
I think the high rolles might be inclined to let the situation ride for a while if they think the MS management is on top of it. Naturally, this is a tricky situation to manage, because Ballmer and Gates can't exactly publicly reassure their investors that they are planning to game the system and make fools out of the regulators. They can't even wink or nod.
It's like high diplomacy; if they do want to game the system, they have to protest and make ineffectual moves towards compliance with a look of tin-plated innocence hoisted on their face that will be barely convincing enough to keep the opposition from being whipped into a frenzy, but not so convincing their clients and allies are whipped into a frenzy.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It is a fallacy that corporations pay taxes. Their tax bill is added to the cost of products that you purchase. If you really were concerned about the poor, you would abolish corporate taxes and lower the cost of everything about 20%. The guy living paycheck to paycheck would have a better chance of saving some money and improving his financial position if his cost of living dropped 20%. Politicians love to tax companies, because most people don't realize that they are paying the taxes for the companies. It allows them to hide the true level of taxes from the people.