Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU satisfied With Microsoft's Antitrust Plan

Posted by timothy on from the yeah-that's-ok-then dept.

rcrc writes "According to Reuters, Microsoft's proposal to avoid paying a fine of $5 million a day has almost been approved by the European Union in a long-running antitrust case. The case deals with the interoperability between the Windows PC and servers. The next step is for the proposal to be "market tested" with other industry players before a final assessment is given by the EU."

5 of 120 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Huh? by Uruk · · Score: 4, Informative

    The fine applies if they can't come to an agreement about the way to fix the issue. The way I read the article, it's not that they are currently dodging the fine, it's that the fine doesn't apply unless a set of conditions are met, and they're trying to avoid meeting that set of conditions, by putting together a different agreement with the EU that supposedly everybody can live with.

    From the article:

    The U.S. software giant could be hit with a fine of up to $5 million a day if the European Commission concludes that its proposals would not allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PC and servers.

    --
    -- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
  2. Clarifying Register article by MathFox · · Score: 5, Informative
    The Register has an interesting article with a quote from the EU commissioner:
    "I remain determined to ensure that all elements of the Decision are properly implemented. This includes the ability for developers of open source software to take advantage of the remedy."
    So, MS's problems are not over yet!
    --
    extern warranty;
    main()
    {
    (void)warranty;
    }
    1. Re:Clarifying Register article by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not really. MS and the EC have agreed to let the Court of the First Instance decide whether mandating that open source implementations be possible is permissible, or if that would constitute an impermissible taking. In fact, that's basically the Commission caving to reality; if they'd mandated that, Microsoft would have gone back to the Court and asked that the whole package be set aside pending the Court's decision, and, this time, they'd have won the delay. This way, at least, the Commission gets something now.

      I think that this is actually the beginning of the end for the EC/MS case. The original decision from the Court said that the reason the remedy wasn't put on hold to begin with was that if it was held to be too extreme later, then Microsoft could simply terminate all the licenses, and no irrevocable harm would have been done. The release of an open source implementation of any of these protocols would constitute irremediable harm -- and the Court would have thrashed the Commission soundly if they'd insisted on that now. The Court signaled that it wouldn't be sympathetic to the Commission's core demands in its original decision, and so when Microsoft started a genuine stare-down which left the Commission a way to leave gracefully, the Commission took it.

  3. Re:Eu, which EU? by daniil · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm sorry to disappoint you, but your optimism is a bit premature. While the "no" to the constitutional treaty has thrown the EU into a crisis, the union will not, in all likelyhood, suddenly just "go away" because of that. For one, the previous treaties still hold, and because of that, the EU will keep on existing in its current state.

    --
    Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
  4. Re:Huh? by dwlovell · · Score: 2, Informative

    Laws are not always clear. Thats why a judge's job is to intepret a law's meaning as it applies to a specific case. (Legislators make laws, judges interpret them, and the police enforces them).

    So some company is engaging in action X that they dont believe breaks the law by their interpretation. You cry fowl and say it is breaking the law by your interpretation. So you file a lawsuit to have a judge determine the law's meaning for this situation. Even if the judge sides with your interpretation, that doesn't mean the company was knowingly breaking the law. They can show that they felt it was legal. Much of punishment has to do with intent. The key is that the judge will make it clear going forward what is legal and what is not and how to resolve/punish past actions. (ie: are there damages to 3rd parties as a result, was the market damaged? Does the company need to cleanup the results of their actions?) In this way the company is fined based on what damages they are responsible for (maybe none) and the law is clarified for future companies who are unsure how to interpret the law.

    There is a common way to handle these agreements in the U.S. that is called a "Consent Decree" where a company effectively says "We didn't do anything wrong, but we promise to never do it again." This EU decision and its resulting consequences/agreements is probably similar to a consent decree.

    This is a totally reasonable result for this case. Just saying "Microsoft broke the law" is easy to say after a judge has interpreted the law to agree with you. You can debate all day wether Microsoft or other companies knowingly break laws and then cry "we didn't know", but these consent decrees/settlements protect everyone from getting screwed by vaugely worded laws.

    -David