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,
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
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
Microsoft is just another company. The EU, even without its Constitution, has taken on the cosmetics and electronics industry, and won. Don't forget that the EU constitutes a larger market than the US.
As for the EU's inability to get their member states to vote favorably on the Constitution, many believe this has more to do with Europeans' sentiments about their national leaders which are pushing the Constitution through.
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.
The one that can't even get member states to vote for the body's Constitution?
If the countries couldn't say "no" then there would be zero point to the process. And you're right, the countries probably will say "no".
The EU is not a country, it is a conglomeration of countries.
Agreed. So Microsoft are pissing off a conglomeration of countries that form the largest single market in the world.
What is their actual power to enforce these laws?
The pooled sovereignty of multiple countries... remember your previous sentence?
Especially seeing as how banning Microsoft on a continent-wide level would be an infringement of each country's right to self-determination.
Don't be absurd, it would be an expression of their right to self determination just like any other multi-lateral arrangements they enter into. Not that Microsoft would get "banned", just compelled to obey by whatever means it takes including power provided by new legislation if it comes to that - playing chicken with governments on that level is just stupid.
I think that someone is going to get a huge wakeup call and I doubt it is going to be Microsoft this time.
In your dreams, sure.
As for the EU's inability to get their member states to vote favorably on the Constitution, many believe this has more to do with Europeans' sentiments about their national leaders which are pushing the Constitution through.
Have you tried reading the draft constitution? Seriously, they need to scrap it and start again. Not because it's bad but because it's barely comprehensible. You can pick bits and pieces you like or dislike and try to sell it on that but trying to sell the thing as a whole is impossible - anyone who pays attention will say "no" simply because they don't understand what they're being asked to agree to.
(From The Seattle Times) "It amounts to about $3,000 per hour for one lawyer, more than $2,000 an hour each for 34 other attorneys and $1,000 an hour for administrative work."
Yes, i know that's an old article, but it would more than likely be similar. When worked out as a 8hr day (9-5), i got $65,400 - not quite $5 million a day.
Anonymous Coward
You might want to do a little reading before spouting off. EU law supercedes the law of member states when the 2 come into conflict. The recent developments in the IR35 debacle in the UK are a fine example.
This is why, as per the article you mention above, there is a lot of dissent among member states about what the constitution is, they are agreeing to that law for themselves.
Further, my understanding is that the policies with regard to monopolies and competition have already been agreed upon, hence, the 'European competition regulator' whose existence is made possible by The Treaty Establishing The European Community, article 81, at least I think it is 81. Either way, there is a list of what is already in play from that treaty with respect to fair competition here.
Take a glance at The EU online, and I would strongly suggest you do a modicum of research before spurting disinformation presented as fact.
People like you piss me off.
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
The perfect solution would then be to announce that they will use the fines to finance Microsoft competitors (oss?). That would bring MS around quite quickly.
IT's not going to happen, I know. I am sure it would work well though.
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'?
.. if you consider $5 million a day free, could you please shoot some money my way? thanks.
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.
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
Sigh, no one ever bothers to read the news:
t buyback21.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/182966_msf
All those years of paying for growth with new shares is coming back to bite Microsoft. Although the insiders look like they will be able to cash out and leave others holding the bag.
This fine would be major. MS has been cutting a billion or so each quarter over the past year just to meet street numbers and keep the stock from tanking.
I dunno. Bill Gates has contested fines and taxes that were levied on him personally. Once he got ticketed for failure to stop at a stop sign, he didn't have proper proof of insurance on him, got cited for that too, and later showed that he did have insurance, just didn't have the card with him. He asked for mitigation of the fine even though it was a piddling amount of money for him.
Then when he had his house built, he contested the assessment on it because he said that the high cost was largely due to the number of change orders involved in the construction, and did not accurately reflect the true market value of the house. Again, the property taxes were piddly compared to his income.
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?
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.
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
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)
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
In Denmark they have threathened to fire 800 employees at Navision if software patents are not legalized in Europe.
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.
Not because it's bad but because it's barely comprehensible.
... is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number.
Would you care to elaborate? I found it inspiring, not as stirring as the American Declaration of Independence, but good nonetheless, and clear when it dealt with the inevitably complex relations between still sovereign states. From the preamble...
Our Constitution
-- Thucydides II, 37
Conscious that Europe is a continent that has brought forth civilisation; that its inhabitants, arriving in successive waves from earliest times, have gradually developed the values underlying humanism: equality of persons, freedom, respect for reason,
Drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, the values of which, still present in its heritage, have embedded within the life of society the central role of the human person and his or her inviolable and inalienable rights, and respect for law,
Believing that reunited Europe intends to continue along the path of civilisation, progress and prosperity, for the good of all its inhabitants, including the weakest and most deprived; that it wishes to remain a continent open to culture, learning and social progress; and that it wishes to deepen the democratic and transparent nature of its public life, and to strive for peace, justice and solidarity throughout the world,
Convinced that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their ancient divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny,
Convinced that, thus "united in its diversity", Europe offers them the best chance of pursuing, with due regard for the rights of each individual and in awareness of their responsibilities towards future generations and the Earth, the great venture which makes of it a special area of human hope,
It is not the blueprint for a Utopia, but then I don't see any but failed Utopias looking around, do you? I'm paying attention, and I'm going to say yes. Personally I think you're playing to the gallery. Just what would a your constitution for a continent with 25 different countries to be united (some of which don't like the idea of a federal parliament at all) look like?
Now you can quote some section of legalese from within the 200 pages which you feel is opaque, but in general I felt it was perfectly readable by ordinary citizens of the union when taken together - that to me is a great achievement, particularly considering it's been written in several languages at once and attempts to integrate treaties going back 40 years. Writing a constitution for a group of countries merging is not the same as writing one for a newly formed country and that is reflected in the length and complexity.
I don't think Europe is yet ready for this kind of ambitious integration, but it will happen at some point in the future.
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
8 hours x (3000 + (2000 x 34) + 1000) = $576,000
I can't even see how you got $65,400.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
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.
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!!!
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.
China isn't in Europe. Nor is Egypt. Nor were the Aztecs. I don't think I'd count several of the middle Easy civilizations, as Europe either. (though that is debatable)
There were independent civilizations in America long before Europe came and imposed their own.
Western civilization arose in Europe, but there were plenty of others that came before or independently.
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." ---