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."
... they would have a few months to figure out what they wanted to do about it.
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.
Or do you think they will ever pay up?
...
Don't be redicilous - they will find their way around it. The same as they find their way around not paying taxes,
they probably pay their team of lawyers more than that per day.
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.
I would definitively comply. Not only because I personally do not think I would be able to scrape together the daily penalty in my whole lifetime, but also because that is a significant amount even for a corporation like Microsoft.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
from increasing the fine if MS doesn't comply and just pays it out?
Bill: What happen?
Executive: Somebody set up us the lawsuit.
Executive: We get subpoena.
Bill: What !
Bill: Main screen turn on.
Bill: It's you!
Judge: How are you gentlemen!
Judge: All your $5 million are belong to us.
Bill: What you say!
Judge: You have no chance to win the case make your time.
Judge: HA HA HA HA
main(0)
they're likely to go a little into the red of this fine, but it'd be stupid to think that they'd just go on for ever. yeah, sure, they make a lot of money, but it's not like they're going to just write it off. And even if they DID; don't you think the EU would try and do something to further encourage them?
"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
I know several people from Cornell who have applied to and work at Microsoft.
I don't think that there is any shortage of talent in the U.S., but if they aren't taking people from MIT, they certainly are taking them here.
Let see... Five million per day divided into a fifty billion piggy bank is how much? That's what Bill Gates for picking up a nickel on the sidewalk. :P
7 more reminders on slashdot's frontpage
Do you take plastic?
And the brethren went away edified.
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.
Bill will surely fill the fine. By now the guy is very used to paying fines and being sued . In fact he thrives in such an environ and gets free publicity to boot.
There's always sufficient, but not always at the right place nor for the right folks.
MS removed MediaPlayer just like the EU ordered. Then the EU scolded MS for not being able to play videos. Sounds like some kind of vendetta or personal predjudice to me.
-]Phreak Out[-
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)
Obviously this is up for amendment at any time, but "Although the amount of fine should act as a sufficient deterrent to firms, it may not under any circumstances exceed 10% of their worldwide turnover."
The appropriate Guidelines
You got any sources to back that assertion up? Not saying it's not true, just that that's the first I've heard of it (and I'm European).
It's official. Most of you are morons.
The joke is on the EU anyway... Bill put a EULA on the check.
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'?
Man, if only Bill Gates had a nickel for everytime Windows crashed, he could pay his way out...
Oh wait, he does.
- shadowmatter
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 last time I looked at the figures of Microsoft's *cash* holdings, a few months ago, they were $47 Billion (that's 'Billion' with a 'B', kids). Assuming Microsoft never made another penny profit and simply broke even from here on out, they would have slightly over 25 *years* to pay that fine every day before they ran out of cash.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Funny how a story about EU politics is on a US flag background. :)
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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
using your examples :-
1) Xandros is not a company. its an installer for an extensive software repository, very little of which is actually "Xandros software"
2) its not exclusively bundling software from a single source which has financial incentive to make alternatives prohibitive.
3) it also comes with konqueror, opera and others afaik, thus isn't anti-competitive
4) Xandros don't do anything to try and make moving away from Xandros a headache
5) Xandros doesn't coerce as much competition as possible into enforcing their dominance.
6) Xandros don't intentionally break standards used in their software to limit interoperability.
7) Xandros aren't exhibiting a burning desire to be considered the only option, at the expense of being nice to people.
8) Microsoft's "package" really can't compete until the software is of similar quality and price, and they include software from thousands of different vendors on their installation CDs/OEM installs...
9) Microsofts' products' biggest selling points are market dominance and self-integration, at the deliberate expense of compatibility with competing products. Ianal, but that's the real crux of the legal issue.
that's all i can think of for now..
Handyboard Hackers' Resource Guide
I wonder what the EU would do if Microsoft decided to fight back? What's preventing them from taking a page from IBM's playbook and firing people, mostly in Europe, to make up for the $5 million a day? I'm not sure how many employees Microsoft has in Europe, but it would likely put a serious dent in that $5 million.
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
This is EXACTLY one of my points! Can Linux compete on a level playing field? By all means, strip Windows down to it's bare basics, but if you're going to do that, Linux and MacOS and all the other operating systems should be required to do the same.
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
> In short, the better solution would be to have the most popular media players
> all available in a default install - IE, install Windows, and it gives you a
> menu of which player you want installed. Same with Linux.
Hmm OK. If that's exactly what Microsoft would have done from the start -- include only the most popular players in a default install -- everyone would still be using Netscape and RealPlayer.
Afterall, those were the most popular applications before microsoft started pushing them out of the market. At the time, IE & MediaPlayer were hardly better, so they would only have gained a marginal momentum if they'd had to compete on equal terms.
So yes, your suggestion sounds great, and yes, it would have made Windows a much weaker product (from a marketing perspective).
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?
Not really. Microsoft has no serious business at all in Europe. Mostly sales, marketing and some training. By firing these people, they'll hurt their own sales figures more than they'll hurt a bunch of politicians: is Kamikaze.
The "IBM trick" works best for jobs that you were planning to move anyway, like R&D outsourcing. And I'm not sure IBM is doing this just to piss of the EU.
The Commission also instructed Microsoft to license confidential Windows code to competitors, allowing them to produce server software that works with Windows Full of shit! The Commission never instructed Microsoft to produce a single line of "code". Juste communication protocols. The IHT is basically refurbishing Microsoft propaganda and spinning an anti-business view of the Commission. sad.
Somebody needs to hire a web-designer who wasn't trained on Frontpage.
Also - a minor point, the $47 billion that MS apparently has, is not cash under the pillow. What it does have is a share value (not sure of terminology) of $47 billion.
Once shareholders see that shrinking - and believe me, they're watching, they're going to sell, sell, sell. The downward spiral. Now this does not give them 21.7 years (as some other bright spark commented) to comply with the regulation.
R.
I think that we (as a Linux community) should not care if Microsoft is illegaly bundling the Media Player with Windows or not
We should follow the Firefox paradigm and produce a much better Media Player for Windows under GPL or BSD-like license and support it as hard as we can
And maybe be cooperate with the Mozilla guys to have them nicely intergrated together so if someone decides to make a switch to one of the two, it'll be attractive to switch to the other too
www.lemonodor.com A mostly Lisp weblog
IMHO, Microsoft will comply and stop bundling MS Media Player with Windows in EU because they have nothing to lose from it. I mean, c'mon guys the only way to hit M$ on the desktop is to sell PCs with Linux pre-installed. And M$ blackmails people not to do that (at least here in Greece).
www.lemonodor.com A mostly Lisp weblog
The problem isn't whith the politician. In some european country like France, where unlike other treaty, constitutional treaty can be addopted only by referundum.
if you used that logic linux should include Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player in their default install.
The main difference is that Linux uses non-descriminatory rules to pick the programs in the default install, and is not for financial gain in a market other than operating systems.
Why would you buy a copy of a 'crippled' XP over a full-featured one
Why, some would question why anyone would pay for a fully-featured WXP. Hands up all those who have!
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
What if microsoft refuses to pay up? What's the EU going to do then? They can't really stop microsoft products being sold in the EU, there would be a europe-wide riot. If ms refuses to pay, the EU wont be able to do a thing.
95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
Xandros aren't using a virtual monopoly to push another which is illegal. The reason I think the EU picked WMP to focus on is because pretty much all mainstream music stores (with the exception of a few like ITunes store and DRM-free indy ones) have chosen to use Microsoft's DRM as it is compatible with most computers due to WMP being shipped with 90%+ of all home computers sold.
Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
Monopolies are bad for consumers, so the rules change when you're a monopoly.
If I make 1% of all cars on the road, and decide to 'bundle' the cars with a certain roadmap, that's OK. Other mapmakers can still compete, consumers still have choice, that choice allows them to exert pressure on the mapmakers to improve their product. This is how capitalism is supposed to work: consumers vote with their wallets to make producers compete.
If I make 90% of all cars on the road and do the same bundling, other mapmakers are effectively excluded from the market. Consumers no longer have any choice, therefore no way to exert pressure on the mapmaker to improve the product.
As an example, plot the 'growth' in IE. During BrowserWar1 (IE vs Netscape) IE improved in leaps and bounds. Then it was mostly dormant for a few years (except for patches). Now, with BrowserWar2 (IE vs Firefox) IE is being improved again (IE7 is being released with tabbed browsing).
competition = choice = power for consumers = better products
monopoly = no choice = powerless consumers = stagnation
One of the problems with your approach is that many of the big media standards are not open. We still haven't seen a large move to OGG. If you want to make your end-all media player, it's going to cost money to get the codecs. http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/
When the policeman of the tie, rule you violate, hello punishment of the kitty?
Yeah that looks promising. Thx for pointing it out!
The project's homepage is under construction.
Intergration with Firefox would be a step forward from that. But OK it's still beta 4 or sth so my best wishes for the project's future
www.lemonodor.com A mostly Lisp weblog
Why do you not see the difference between a set of libraries that provide functionality that applications can use, and applications that use them?
Users use applications. The competition is between applications. Microsoft bundles applications. Microsoft can kill competitors by bundling applications. Microsoft should not bundle applications. Microsoft was forbidden from bundling applications.
Users don't see libraries. The competition is not between libraries. Microsoft bundles libraries. Microsoft cannot kill competitors by bundling libraries. Microsoft should bundle libraries. Microsoft was not forbidden from bundling libraries.
You really can't see the difference?
BTW, the above applies to Internet Explorer vs the Trident rendering engine as well. Microsoft argued that Internet Explorer was part of the operating system and could not be removed, when in actual fact it was Trident that was part of the operating system and could not be removed. Netscape couldn't have cared less if Trident was bundled with Windows, but Internet Explorer being bundled with Windows damn near killed them.
Try five hundred BILLION dollars.
</drevil>
Media player is just one of the many things they needed to do.
Licencing the patents/technologies to allow other vendors (including opensource) to interoperate with Windows - that is the significant part that they don't want to do, ever.
Shipping with out the Windows media player allows for other media players to gain a foot hold, but a the browser would still be IE. I think they should ship both IE AND Firefox and let the consumers pick which one they want.
However, the treaty of Rome and subsequent enabling treaties which empower the EU compeitition ministry to do this also gives them one other important power which they have so far not used; the right to set aside and void contracts. This was originally intended to set asside member state and commercial contracts which were created under unfair bids, but I don't recall seeing anything in the treaty language nessisarly limiting it's action in this regard other than past uses. What if the EU competition ministry really grew a set, and choose instead to try and void the Microsoft EULA within the European Union as an instrument of unfair bargaining by an illegal monopoly? It may just actually have the authority to do this. Certainly it does have the clear authority, which it has used before, to explicitly cancel existing government and private contracts, though would normally do so individually rather than wholesale. Certainly if they even tried to do this, whether attacking large individual contracts, or, wholesale liberation of their consumers, it would be a much more effective action against Microsoft's monoply business practices than any piddly fine...
Man, if only Bill Gates had a nickel for everytime Windows crashed, he could pay his way out...
Well in 2003 there were 593,085,000 PC's. There were 42.8 million PC's sold in Q2 2004, for simplicity lets assume that these sales remain stable for the period Q1 2004 to the end of Q2 2005 - this would equal 256,800,000 PC's baught in this period. I don't have any figures showing how many of these purchases will be replacements rather than new users, therefore I shall be conservative and say 50% are replacements giving a total number of PC's in the world at a very rough estimate by the end of Q2 2005 to be 721,485,000. About 95% of PC's run Windows, therefore the number of Window's PC's in the world at the end of Q2 2005 would equal approximately 685,410,750.
Let us assume that each Window's PC crashes twice per week, worldwide that's 1,370,821,500 windows crashes per week which equals 71,529,465,870 worldwide windows crashes per year.
A Nickel is worth 5 cents, so the amount of money you would receive per crash per year (pcpy) if you had a Nickel for every time Windows crashed would be $3,576,473,293.5, or $3.58 Billion. Windows was released in 1985 so if we assumed that there were a constant number of PC's from 1985 to 2005 that would be $71.53 billion. Of course there weren't as many PC's in 1985 so that figure would actually be a lot lot less.
As Billy No Gates has a personal wealth of over $61 billion it is safe to say that your argument has been proved!
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
It supports all the software I use (music production s/w), which Linux does not, and contrary to slashbots' comical belief, it is extremely stable and has never given me a BSOD.
In the context of the price you pay for a music production PC, the cost of XP is trivial. My soundcard alone cost several times as much.
I think this is something the computer vendors should take care of; I don't mind if separate copies of Windows contain IE, after all there needs to be a way for people to download Firefox or Opera or whichever browser they really want :) However, forcing IE on people when they are buying a computer should be forbidden.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Can you get a Apple G5 with Internet Explorer 5 and Windows Media Player instead of Safari and Quicktime?
"We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
Judges issue fines to encourage you to change your ways. If you don't do that, they will start doing other things, perhaps increase the fine or put people in jail. Bill may go to Europe to snatch an honory Knighthood and wham! In jail like a common thief! Ok, so he would probably get the really nice jail suite with no bars, cable and a servant.
What is my agenda?
I wish to live in a peaceful, integrated Europe, which is capable of managing the change from living off the developing world (as we do just now) to supporting it and accepting it as an equal.
I think we believe different things because we come from different cultures in Europe. As has been said many times, a French No is very different to a British No, or even a French Yes to a British Yes. I'm not from France.
most people do not even understand the first page for christ sake.
Given that the first page is the passage quoted (unless you count the title/preface), I find that hard to believe. I read the first 50 pages in half an hour or so, without too many problems. For the curious, it's available on the web en fr.
of a lot of very important parts of this "constitution", but yet, you understand all of it very clearly ?
Some of it uses deliberately vague language to allow wiggle room for the various partner states. There are many 'get out clauses' (which they refer to amusingly as passerelles in the English text (ça sent le français original parfois, il faut le dire)) for the various nation states that didn't want to sign up to all of it at once. I can see how that could lead to ambiguity. I didn't say I understood every nuance, I said it was remarkably clear for a text which deals with so many issues.
Have you read it?
If you expect something to be legally watertight it is very difficult to make it at the same time clear. I am in no way saying this document is perfect, but it is not the source of all evil as you seem to hint. Many of the national laws in France and the UK are just as obscure, if not far far worse.
Perhaps the worst part, is that this "constituion" defines the economic regime. This is the worst thing you could find in a constitution (we can see the effects with the software patents episode), but it does not seem to be a big deal to you.
Economics is integral to politics, and this document supercedes many treaties, and thus incorporates their rules. These treaties were agreed upon by all the nation states. Those rules will be in no way changed by a yes or a no to the constitution. Are you really suggesting that we repeal the common market, is that what you want? Would that solve economic problems in France?? ?
To say, as the constitution does,
based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, highly competitive and aiming at full employment and social progress.
is a balance between the free market economics which now dominate the agenda in Europe and the feeling that we should strive to uphold our standards, not lower them to the lowest common denominator (le nivellement par le bas). Europe is not France and the UK is not America - there are many shades of social democracy, and the argument is over which particular shade we want to aspire to. Now I can't say I agree with many of the policies in the UK right now but just as an example often not cited in the current French debate the public services of each nation are explicitly defended in this document, the cultural exception is there.
Frankly, living in France, I find the debate here on the constitution dissapointing, desolant, in its insistance on the corrupt right wing government in power, the economy, and the difficult situation for most French workers. Will voting no change any of that? If you aspire to a better constitution, by all means fight for one - this one could in many ways be improved. If you wish to live in a France unbuffetted by the changes the world is undergoing, which will forever live as in the halcyon days of les trentes glorieuses, you are living in the past.
The most disturbing thing about the debate right now in France is that if the constitution is rejected this time by France, the next proposa
Actually you are wrong. I do not know the exact figure but Microsoft does have $40-$50 Billion in cash.
The term you are looking for is Market Capitalization which is the value of outstanding shares of Microsoft multiplied by the current stock value. Current MSFT has a MarketCap of $278.5 Billion. Change in the Market cap is caused by change in M$ stock price. Investors cause the change, not the other way around. i.e. If investors are pleased with MSFT they bid the stock price up which raises the MarketCap; if investors are unhappy with MSFT the stock price goes down lowering the MarketCap.
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
Ah, that is interesting, and doesn't fit into any of the reading/understanding I have of the way it works.
;)
Further, I just did a touch of research then, which does not support this claim.
Do you think it is possible that 'Polish law is still the highest and nor the Europen Constitution nor any other law will supercede Polish law' is simply a view presented to you by your politicians in an attempt to tell their electorate that they won't be told what to do by anyone - with the obvious political advantages a statement has.
They can always say they are misunderstood later.
To make myself clearer, everything I understand and have read about the EU requires member states to submit to the rule of the EU administration, even if this conflicts with local law. If you want to be a member state, then that is one of the conditions you have to agree to. I can't imagine Poland in particular being an exception to this - from what I gather Poland was particularly keen to get into the EU, the benefits to them being somewhat more pronounced than the benefits to some of the wealthier member states.
On a related note, I for one am pretty pleased with Poland's entry, and I expect it to be beneficial to both Poland and the EU at large - plus, it is one more interesting place to take a contract
I am genuinely curious about your statements above though, can you provide any links?
I agree completely! Linux should be stripped down to the bare basics immediately!
Oh, wait...
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
>> This is EXACTLY one of my points! Can Linux >>compete on a level playing field? By all means, >>strip Windows down to it's bare basics, but if >>you're going to do that, Linux and MacOS and all >>the other operating systems should be required to >>do the same.
Isn't this already done. I mean really folks, Linux is original from www.kernel.org and mirrors and is just a kernel. Red Hat, Suse, Caldera, etc... is not Linux only. It is a combination of software products.
Tell M$ either comply with the requirements, or they remove all rights to sell any windows OS except 3.1.
What movie?
Which tells me they're *trying* to find a solution and a fine would be inappropriate but they want to do it in a fashion that won't result in the theft of their IP by OSS zealots.
It sounds like the EU is saying:
"We don't know exactly what we want you to do, so make proposals until we tell you one is adequate. By the way, if you don't come up with a proposal we like by the deadline, we're going to fine you."
No, but you can just throw them into the trash, use another program, and your system will run just fine.
Let's say 10% of MS's revenue is from Europe (~$10million/day). If they raise their European prices by 50%, that covers the fine, but raises their world wide revenue by $5million/day, which adds $250,000 to the fine, which can be passed on by an additional 2.5% of the original amount.
If I could remember my math I could figure out the exact amount they need to raise prices in Europe to pass all the costs on to Europeans, but I doubt it's over 53%.
So Real has more clout than Microsoft?
As well her being "naked and petrified"...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Isn't it also within their power to simply bar MS from doing business in the EU? No local sales, no one allowed to import the products from outside? Given the size of the MS market in Europe and the howls of outrage that would occur when businesses and consumers have to begin switching to other software, that's a game of chicken that I'd pay to see.
Those that do not will then be sued.
Where?
Media Player Classic is the only player I use. It's open source, and you can play real media and quicktime files in it, along with pretty much everything else.
All you need to do is download Real Alternative and Quicktime Alternative (both of which includes Media Player Classic).
Media Player Classic will integrate with IE or Firefox if you want, so you can view content from within the webpage (but I hate this feature, so I leave it disabled)
If you use Windows, I strongly recommend you try it out, it's way better then Windows Media Player 9 or 10 with all the DRM crap. The reason it's called Media Player Classic is because it's based off of Windows Media Player 6, the last good release of WMPlayer from Microsoft.
So, I have to agree that the reason Microsoft is a monopoly has nothing to do with Media Player or IE. As a reminder as to the real reason, which I haven't really seen addressed yet... Here's a repost of an article from 2002. Sorry, it's long, but important to remember. Here's the sad story of BeOS.
He Who Controls the Bootloader
End of an Era
Scot Hacker, August 2001
The day before I submitted this column, news hit the net that the other shoe had finally dropped. After months of waiting and wondering what was to become of Be, we learned that Palm, Inc. will be purchasing Be's technology, intellectual property, and assets. While we don't yet know exactly what Palm plans to do with Be, my guess is that the company intends to beef up and extend its product line -- make palm-sized devices more media-friendly, and possibly build appliance-like units for the home. As analyst William Crawford recently said, "Where they have to go, Be already is." Be's lightweight footprint and excellent media handing capabilities make the technology a good fit. Be will receive $11 million in Palm stock, which they intend to liquidate to pay off debts. Considering that Apple allegedly once considered paying $125 million for Be, Palm got Be for a song -- a fire-sale blowout.
Palm initially stated that they don't intend to develop a desktop version of BeOS, which means the version of BeOS you're using now may be the last one you'll ever see. However, users who have corresponded with Palm's top ranks have been met with an open ear, and BeFAQs is currently preparing a full report on the state and potential of the BeOS user base for the big cheeses at Palm. Whether the report will have any effect is anybody's guess, but barring a miracle, it seems that BeOS is now officially dead in terms of its prospects for further evolution. That, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's dead to the users who already have it installed. The BeOS userbase will likely become similar to the Amiga userbase - hanging on to those souped-up boxes out of sheer love for years, maybe decades.
Some in the community met the news with relief. Others simply seem exhausted by the endless process of battling ridiculous odds, and are ready to move on to something else. But many still believe deeply in what Be is and what they've created. Believe that there is a way to best Microsoft at its own game (without having to tread the open source quaqmire). Believe that there is no better desktop user experience, period.
But the reality is that Be's failure has made a point to the world, to whit: "Don't bother trying to create a better commercial desktop OS -- it doesn't matter how hard you try, how many engineers you throw at the problem, how much money you spend, or how many years you put into it. Microsoft owns that space and, worse, the public is totally complicit with that fact. People will not stop using Windows. It is a losing battle."
It is unlikely now that anyone will ever again attempt what Be, Amiga, and IBM attempted. And that's the saddest thing of all -- the insidious ways in which the monopoly has wormed itself into the fabric of our economy and culture. The message that "resistance is futile" has been hammered home. The only OS projects that stand a chance are open source, because they don't play by the rules of the economy. But open source projects seem either unable or unwilling to create a system that approaches the elegance, speed, and ease-of-use of BeOS. If you want an x86 system with a future, you're now bound either to the mess of GNU/Linux or to the Windows donkey cart, with all of the political and technological baggage that entails.
Speaking of the insidious tendrils of The Monopoly and its effect on small companies like Be who dare to set foot in the ogre's front yard, on with this month's intended column.
Peaceful Co-Existence? Right.
It is statistically unlikely that a person purchasing a new computer is ever going to change its operating system -- the OS that comes with the computer you
While I agree there are certainly worthwhile elements in the EU constitution, I would vote 'no' (if my country hadn't withdrawn a promised referendum on the matter), because it fails to do what it should do: make sure that the EU *IS* a democracy.
It's not about ambitious integration, it's about not integrating enough, in a democratic way. The only part in the whole EU that represents directly the 'populace' is the EU parliament. But, while they get some marginal more power as lipservice, the EC (by any other name) is still the one that makes the law. And, I should remind you, that the EC is a bunch of unelected beaurocrats, who do not represent the people, aren't voted by them into office, and don't have any political responsability towards the EU citizens. Yet, they decide on creating laws that could affect millions of those same EU citizens. Does that strike you as fair, or even reasonable? Not to me. To me, it's complete idiotic and utterly undemocratic. In comparison, the EC ALOS got more power, even more so then the EU, which, in total makes things worse instead of better, in the light of becomming a true democracy.
What one should have done is to abolish the EC and the counsel of ministers, whome both are not voted into the positions they have by the populace - unless by far proxy, but that's no proper way of being democratic. Replace them by a senate, and by a directly voted EU president. And make very clear that cultural/moral/ethical/etc subjects stay a matter of soevereign countries; we don't want a one-taste-for-all blending, after all. So keep the petty regulations about stuff the EU shouldn't mess with away, and concentrate on those things that really DO matter; like forming a united front in matters of foreign diplomacy and the military.
Instead, the current trend of the EU is just the oposite: less democracy, more bureaucrats, more meddling in internal affairs, and remaining weak at just the points we should strive to be stronger.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Ok, I see your point, and the point of the other person who replied to my message. But to an extent it doesn't matter: when people think of Linux, they don't think of the kernel, they think of the distributions, and to a fault, they all include some form of media player. The end user in most cases (and Slashdot users aren't really a fair basis for comparison here) doesn't give a damn whether the competition has been allowed to include their own media player, or indeed whether it's open source or proprietory, as long as they're able to play their MP3s.
Wouldn't you be more than a little frustrated these days if you fired up your system for the first time after installation and weren't able to play an audio file, or even browse the web? Microsoft may have been unfair to integrate them in the first place, but we do now expect this functionality to be there.
As always, this is just my opinion and I hope you take it as such. I'm not here to get people riled up.
I wouldn't call myself a Microsoft fan though I don't hate Microsoft. They are trying to run a business. I don't blame them for doing that. I am sure that many would say, if given that kind of world market share, they would be more giving and gracious to their competitors but I doubt it. Where is their graciousness now? Microsoft is a convenient money tree for countries and companies that can not compete with them. If you can't create a competitive product sue Microsoft to keep yourself out of the red. I suppose people seem to think that Microsoft should just give away its market share without fighting back. I don't hear anyone being honest about these ridiculous lawsuits. Please be honest, most of the people I have read in this thread would love to see Microsoft hurt. They don't care what lengths people have to go through to hurt them. They just want to see the great Microsoft topple. That way all their favorite little companies will be able to grab a little market share. If any one of them found themselves in Microsoft's position, they would be exactly like them! They don't care what lengths they need to go through to topple Microsoft and Microsoft doesn't care what lengths they have to do to stay on top. If they really hated what Microsoft stood for they wouldn't be rolling around in the same mud. Right now Linux is doing well. It still doesn't have a huge market share but it is improving and I have confidence that it will continue to do so. I am really excited about how much easier it is becoming to use. It will be difficult to overcome Microsoft but I honestly think that time will find Linux as a competitive product. The problem that needs to be overcome isn't Microsoft. It's the people and software development. People are not really caught up on Microsoft's operating system as they are the products that are made for it. I could care less what operating system I am running on my PC as long as I can play my games and other favorite software applications without a hassle. That is all I want. I am a customer. Fulfill my needs. Do people buy a game console because the console is cool or because they like the games? Give me my software and you have my business! I am sure I will get plenty of hate responses about this and that is ok. A little flame won't bother me. I would love to see Linux as a competitor to Microsoft but I would much rather it be because it had superior ideas. Not because a mass of people who just hated the largest software company felt they needed to file suite after suite to bring down the "evil" company. Agree or disagree? Creep73
"of countries" ... working together.
Rather like states combined for common purposes, subsuming some functions and powers into a shared administration. Ours are (still) quite limited in both function and power, but don't assume that looseness is weakness.
Microsoft may have been unfair to integrate them in the first place, but we do now expect this functionality to be there.
Problem is, Microsoft is still being unfair. They're unfair every single time they sell a bundled copy of all their share with no alternative and no way to remove it. If they provided an appropriately cheaper version to retailers without the bundled stuff, and made it removeable in the standard version, I wouldn't have any sort of problem with them bundling cos there would be alternatives dammit.
The removability isn't an issue in anything we'd recognise as being Linux. I can see how the issue of bundling could become an issue but, in Linux, there's always a recourse. In the case of most Linux distributors, you can download sources and create your own version. If that's not available, you can buy their software, demand sources and then create your own version, thus removing the problem for everyone else.
This probably wouldn't be an issue in most cases as, if enough people asked, I can't imagine that the average Linux distributor wouldn't produce an unbundled version for an appropriately lower price (consumer power in action). Bear in mind that most Linux companies charge for the support not the software, so the appropriately lower price I mentioned earlier would be identical to the standard price - effectively zero.
To conclude, the three scourges of no alternative, no removability and no recourse don't exist in the same way with Linux, and I have trouble seeing how they could come into being.
As always, this is just my opinion and I hope you take it as such. I'm not here to get people riled up.
Same here and thanks for the discussion.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Microsoft paid a dividend because:
1. The stock had flatlined and was starting to crash. Paying a dividend helped keep it stable while MS initiated a buyback program.
2. Bill realized MS will fold in his lifetime, probably within a decade. Of the $10 billion distributed, $1 billion went to him. That should provide a nice retirement.
About the fine: MS would rather pay it than hurt their business by doing what the EU want. It could become a standardized and legal bribe for the EU to leave MS alone. How much will an extra $1.8 billion/year affect the EU budget? How much is it worth for MS to continue business as usual?
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
Ok. Let's throw this one out there. If you had the power to recommend what Microsoft should do on this issue, what options would you suggest? For my part, I would break as many links as possible between IE and Media Player and Windows - turn the OS more into a platform rather than an integrated system. And then offer both as an option during the installation process. I don't know if I'd go so far as to recommend including competitors software, but as long as distributors were able to do so, the problem would be solved.
Trouble is of course, no matter how much MS turned around and made these sort of changes, there would still be a hardcore of people who consider them the Evil Empire(tm)!
It seems to me though that the best decisions MS have made are the ones that have been made by the developers when they've been allowed to get on with things, and the worst ones have been those made entirely by the marketing department!
That's because you're not a huge corporate entity. Enron, Tycho, all those execs are getting a slap on the wrist, and maybe some time at Club Fed, and they've been doing that shit for years. The law doesn't work the same for corporations as it does for us normal (well, as normal as anyone on slashdot is...) folk.
Yeah, just look at Exxon and Union Carbide. Fishermen and villagers in Alaska have yet to receive anything from Exxon Valdez, as have many villagers in Bhopal, India for the gas cloud that killed many. Corporations and their officers need to be held accountable. The corporate aristocracy thinks they can get away with anything.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I think of a few more recent examples of a (republican) president lying about some key evidence.
Both Democrats and Republicans have been caught lying in court or the congress as well as to the public
FalconOf course I can bash both parties, I'm a Jeffersonian Democrat, otherwise know as a Libertarian.
Should there be a Law?
How many dividends has MS paid out? How many lawsuits does MS find it self in? And how often has shareholders complaigned? Never.
If I recall right MS as only paid dividends once, a special dividend paid out last tyear.
FalconShould there be a Law?
MS reported $2,560,000,000 profit last quarter. Spread over 90 days that's $28,444,444.44 profit per day. That means that $5,000,000 per day is about 17.6% of their profit. If the EU provides less than 17.6% of MS's market then it'll be actively costing them money to remain operating in Europe.
Is it $5,000,000 or 5%? I've seen both quoted. If it's 5% taking $28M per day then the fine if $1.4M. Another thing, is the $28M per world wide or just in the EU, and if it's world wide then I don't think the EU could fine them on that, it could only fine them on EU sales.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Hmm...aren't there some european countries in Microsoft's Shared Source initiative? If the contract is voided and they have the source, couldn't they fork it into an open source project? Or a closed source project, but that's not as fun.
Sure, people wouldn't legally be allowed to use it in the US (the copyright would still be valid here), but the other five billion people would be able.
I can dream can't I?
Where is the Love? and whats up with all the queer talk? Oh! Your one of those guys.
I want this stupid newsletter to quit clogging up my e-mail!!!!Now I'm hooked on the "Damn Thing"I need the Damn Thing N
Point taken ;)
www.lemonodor.com A mostly Lisp weblog
Nothing wrong with that ;)
Me (Blog)
If you had the power to recommend what Microsoft should do on this issue, what options would you suggest?
:P
What you said would pretty much cover it on the bundling issue. The other major issues I have with Microsoft are their refusal to make formats, protocols and APIs publicly available, and their tendency to put pressure on distributors to ship Windows and only Windows. If they would clean up their act on these issues, I for one would be pretty much prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt on having turned over a new leaf.
It seems to me though that the best decisions MS have made are the ones that have been made by the developers when they've been allowed to get on with things, and the worst ones have been those made entirely by the marketing department!
I've always felt that they key difference between Linux and Windows is that Linux is designed by computer scientists whereas Windows is designed by marketing consultants. In both cases, it really shows...
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Freedom is the issue here. Companies should have the freedom to package their products however they like. You have the freedom to buy or reject those products. Anything else is an attack on freedom.
I think, therefore I doh.
Excuse me, maybe I'm missing something here, but why the hell is it Microsoft's duty to help the competition? Isn't the point of the free-market to compete, not hold hands?
Man, I read more and more communist BS on /. everyday. When are you people going to learn that freedom is at stake when you start telling other people or companies how to run their businesses. It's a two way street. At this rate, we might as well give half our incomes to the government so they have enough money and power to run our lives for us. Wait a minute...
"A goverment that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away." - Barry Goldwater
I think, therefore I doh.
I think you'd be right on both issues. On the first part at least I think MS are taking some steps in the right direction, but only time will tell whether they're serious about it or not. Second part, you're probably right as well. To an extent Windows has to be given a lot of input from the marketing side because people do have to go out and buy it, rather than it being free. To be honest I'm dubious about people saying Linux is ready for the desktop - some distros are further along than others on that one, Ubuntu being my preferred choice whenever I have to use Linux. Maybe we'll see the needed improvements on that score soon, I guess only time will tell there as well.
Oo! Me!
Derive Politics
Well, unfortunately, you can't NOT use IE in Windows.
Ever browsed your computer? IE.
Hell, even viewing your desktop is IE-linked. (Note that an IE crash reloads your desktop.)
Downloading any non-critical windows updates? IE-only.
We all could forgive MS for putting IE in their system, if getting owned by spyware didnt make you drop into a terminal to browse your computer. Always pissed me off to see MyWebSearch, Yahoo! Toolbar, AIM Toolbar, and various others open whilst browsing my friends' horribly-owned systems.
The problem is that Windows is a self-propetuating demon. People get whatever computer/OS their friends know, and thus one Windows user spawns 3 more, and you get WU(t) = 3e^(kt), an exponentioal function ensues.
The EU is doing their job to make sure that such a market strength doesn't prevent others from getting in on the action.