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."

120 comments

  1. lammas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    first post?

  2. WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THE EU? by CmdrTaco+(troll) · · Score: -1, Troll

    They're a fucking dying organization.

    --

    I hope high gas prices are depriving your children, you fucking dumbass.
  3. fp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    FP

  4. But will Microsoft have a monopoly in the future? by CyricZ · · Score: 0, Interesting

    With Apple hedging into Microsoft's PC market through the release of their x86 version of Mac OS X, will Microsoft still be able to maintain their monopoly? Not to mention that there are doubts as to whether or not Longhord will be completed within a reasonable time frame. But still, this is a point we must consider: by the time Microsoft is tried for their monopolistic behavior, will they still be a monopoly, or merely a player in the burgeoning oligopic personal computer market?

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  5. Eu, which EU? by acostin · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    It seems that EU is going away :) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4601439.st m

    Alexandru

    1. 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.
    2. Re:Eu, which EU? by acostin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am from Romania, a country scheduled for EU integration in 2007. I might see that my bitter-sweet joke wasn't interpreted as it should. We'd like to have a strong EU, but unfortunately the western europeans are scared by the integration problems ... on the short term, the Eastern-Europeans will invade their workplaces, and thus unemployment will be higher ... however, in the long term, a strong EU will help Europe compete with USA and China. Anyway - Romania will probably be delayed one year... We'll live and see.

    3. Re:Eu, which EU? by RWerp · · Score: 1

      There is a danger the EU may crash down, and I'm not happy writing this. France was an important player in the EU. And this important player has just shown the middle finger to the rest of the gang. After all, this Constitutional Treaty has been already shaped in a lot of aspects so as to please the French. It was a compromise. Yet the French decided they want all or nothing. It's not fair to the rest of nations in the EU.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    4. Re:Eu, which EU? by arose · · Score: 1

      No, they are showing the middle finger to the eurocrats who think that the citizents exists to serve them and not the other way around.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    5. Re:Eu, which EU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem is not the integration. The problem is what you (I mean all who lives in the soon EU countries) get paid for your work. The problem is that this piece of sh1t that they call a treaty has only 4 pages about social rights in a 350 pages book. What most of us (Western European) would like to see is an integration where not only the market is integrated but the people is too integrated. What we like is that you come here and get paid the same that we are paid, not less, and work just as much as we do, not more. Or if you like it another way: we want you to get paid as many euro/hour as we are. Then it will be no problem in expanding the EU to any other country.

      What would you think of your politics if they changed your laws to allow kids to substitute adults being paid with toys? much less expensive than paing an adult, isn't it? Would you say "hey, let kids work and let's make a party while we get fired!". I don't think so.

      The REAL problem are not the workers. The real problem are those bastards that only watch their wallets and don't give a sh1t about people. And this treaty gives power to those bastards.

      And I know you are as good as we to make the same jobs (given the same training). So, why we have to say yes to "same job, less money"?

    6. Re:Eu, which EU? by higuita · · Score: 1

      1- there are several reasons for the french vote, and they go from distrust in their president to nacionalistic issues
      but one of the worst thing about the constitution is that no one understand it, no one can explain it, its everything but clear and simple, and this, specially in hard/hot times isnt the best way to go...

      people right now already thing that the EU administrative organization too complicated, too independent, unmonitored, uncontroled, lobby infected, unrepresentative of what people think and with all this, also powerfull

      this constituion would give even more powers to then, although it gives more powers to the EU parlament, this body still feels too distant from the ordinary people

      people want a clear, transparent, open EU, not something that happends without even listen our opinion

      its not just the french that are unhappy, lot of countries and people are, they were the first to public show it.

      i'm not french, i'm portuguese, and i was a pro-europe guy... now i'm divided, i still want it, but i dont like how is being ruled and organized, it doesnt seen like a democracy, more a a "concilium" of powerfull politics and powerfull lobies

      2 - voting no to the constitution doesnt mean that they want to abandon europe... yes, nacionalistic partys want you to think that, but that isnt true
      almost all people know that europe can only survive united, even if things look bad, none (except maybe the UK, but many of then still think they have some kind of empire ) want to exit the europe

      3 - It was a compromise

      this was why it was so obscure and useless... it tried to be all, do all...

      what people want is a democraty and SIMPLE, EASY to understand EU politic organization and interact with it

      i blame both the EU politics, but also each country governement and leaders, that were more interested in defending their diferent values instead of finding the common ones

      people want first a simples constitution that everyone can agree (not something that everyone have doubt in some place)
      it must be simple and should not mess with the politic organization (at least, not yet, it will be the base for it, and this shouldnt be inside the constitution)

      the constitution should be something that unites the people, not divides then, and it will the rock where all EU will be build, so its better that people understand it, not ignores it

      --
      Higuita
    7. Re:Eu, which EU? by RWerp · · Score: 1

      And how will the "Non" change it? The constitution would bring a little more democracy in the EU. Instead, we will gain nothing, because there won't be any "Constitution -- Reloaded" for the next 10 years or so.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    8. Re:Eu, which EU? by RWerp · · Score: 1

      but one of the worst thing about the constitution is that no one understand it, no one can explain it, its everything but clear and simple, and this, specially in hard/hot times isnt the best way to go...

      So we're now left with the Nice treaty, which is obviously so simple and clear that the French preferred it over the Constitution.

      people right now already thing that the EU administrative organization too complicated, too independent, unmonitored, uncontroled, lobby infected, unrepresentative of what people think and with all this, also powerfull

      And by rejecting the Constitution we will change it? How?

      3 - "It was a compromise"
      this was why it was so obscure and useless... it tried to be all, do all...
      i blame both the EU politics, but also each country governement and leaders, that were more interested in defending their diferent values instead of finding the common ones

      But that's what compromise is for! It's not like the governments have different values, the nations of Europe have different values. The French are social, the British are liberal, the Poles catholic and the Dutch atheistic. This Constitution had to be a compromise, a dirty, tiring, messy compromise. This is how treaties are written, for God's sake. What kind of dreamworld do you live in, if you think we could come up with a treaty which would be 100% satisfying to everyone?

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    9. Re:Eu, which EU? by higuita · · Score: 1

      whats wrong in having just a few lines that everyone agrees... and then extend it and correct it with time? isnt like that in the USA?

      -everyone is equal.
      -you are inocent until provem guilty
      -union laws will supercede national laws
      -no new laws will apply to things older than its aproval
      -no more veto power for many things, still veto power for others (things like war, new members, etc
      -etc, etc

      this kind of things is what should exist in a constintution, not too specific things...

      yes, some will be also a little compromise, but with so many diferent ideas, we need to have a solid commom base to start talking in some new compromise on hot issues (taxes, foreign politcs, agricuture and fishes control, etc,etc)

      again, compromises are needed, but people have to understand then and need something that guarantees that their opinion is important (ie: a more open to the public EU than the actual "hidden agenda" and "too important" EU organization)

      nothing will ever make 100% happy everyone, but right now, only 1% of the people really know something usefull about the EU and the constitution and how to fight for their rights, so how the hell can they have any opinion

      --
      Higuita
  6. In all honesty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the EU as a whole, and EU member countries are far more forward thinking that the US ever will be. I think that the entire MS thing is crap. MS will never learn from any sanctions. MS knows that Linux is on the up and up. Every year more EU countries and even non-EU countries switch over to Linux. It's just a matter of time before MS is not even on the radar. I'm looking forward to that day.
    I for one welcome our socialist computer overlords...

    1. Re:In all honesty... by PyWiz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Every year more EU countries and even non-EU countries switch over to Linux. No, they won't. Entire countries are not just going to switch over, they have too much invested in MS products to make this even close to feasible. Consider that MS now controls upwards of 90% of the desktop market. People aren't going to wake up one day and think "Oh, in spite of all the money I've spent on MS software and all the time I've invested in learning how to use MS products, I think I'll switch to Linux because it's free and allows people who know how to modify the source code (I don't have the first clue LOL). Regardless of the fact that it will require me to learn an entire new way of doing things and probably greatly eliminate my productivity in the short run, it's worth it for me to switch to linux because of it's socialist model which I find unacceptable in other areas of business but completely support when it comes to software."

      No, I'm sorry, just no. Personally, I use both MS products and Linux. Why? Well Linux works better for many of programming related projects I am involved in and I can get great free development tools. When it comes to gaming and general desktop applications though, I fire up my WinXP box because, well, it just works.

      It's just a matter of time before MS is not even on the radar.

      You have got to be kidding me. Honestly, I cannot believe someone would say something like this without any sort of evidence or support for their statement. You think MS's huge marketshare is just going to disappear? Excuse me, but what fantasy business world do you live in where that is even remotely plausible?

      Looks guys, I'm not trying to be mean here, but I'm honestly sick and tired of misinformed people claiming Linux is going to take over and replace microsoft. It's just not going to happen. Linux is good for some things, and MS is good for others. They are not mutually exclusive. Live with it.

      --
      -py
    2. Re:In all honesty... by Kilz · · Score: 1

      No, they won't. Entire countries are not just going to switch over, they have too much invested in MS products to make this even close to feasible. Consider that MS now controls upwards of 90% of the desktop market. People aren't going to wake up one day and think "Oh, in spite of all the money I've spent on MS software and all the time I've invested in learning how to use MS products, I think I'll switch to Linux because it's free and allows people who know how to modify the source code (I don't have the first clue LOL). Regardless of the fact that it will require me to learn an entire new way of doing things and probably greatly eliminate my productivity in the short run, it's worth it for me to switch to linux because of it's socialist model which I find unacceptable in other areas of business but completely support when it comes to software."

      While there may not be a lot of countries doing it. There are some municipalities doing it. Think of them as test cases. As more and more see the benefits more and more will not believe the M$ fud.

      When it comes to gaming and general desktop applications though, I fire up my WinXP box because, well, it just works.

      Every year Linux becomes more of a finished product. Each little step brings it closer. I bet Linux will be good for those applications before a M$ operating system shows up with all the longhorn vaporware in it.

      You have got to be kidding me. Honestly, I cannot believe someone would say something like this without any sort of evidence or support for their statement. You think MS's huge marketshare is just going to disappear? Excuse me, but what fantasy business world do you live in where that is even remotely plausible?

      The one where the EU opens up the spec's and Microsofts extend and break idea goes up in smoke.

      Looks guys, I'm not trying to be mean here, but I'm honestly sick and tired of misinformed people claiming Linux is going to take over and replace microsoft. It's just not going to happen. Linux is good for some things, and MS is good for others. They are not mutually exclusive. Live with it.

      Maybe not take over, but id like to see it have a greated install base. Joe Stupid will always pick malware-virus infested garbage from M$ the misinformed always do. Wait as we speak more and more work goes into Linux to make it desktop ready. It may not be ready today for everyone. But then someone probably thought as you do 5 years ago working on thier Unix server and thinking Linux will never be a good server os.

      --
      I trust Microsoft as far as I could comfortably spit a dead rat
    3. Re:In all honesty... by PigIronBob · · Score: 1

      I remember the days when Ashton Tate, Wordperfect and Lotus Corp. ruled the roost, anyone, no matter how big will obey gravity when it calls, for Microsoft the fall may be longer, but once critical velocity is reached there will be nothing to stop it.

      --
      You never catch me alive
    4. Re:In all honesty... by masklinn · · Score: 1
      While there may not be a lot of countries doing it. There are some municipalities doing it. Think of them as test cases. As more and more see the benefits more and more will not believe the M$ fud.
      Although I am european, what I have to say on that matter is: even though there are some OSS advances in EU, south america is neck and shoulders ahead in public administration's deployment of OSS solutions...

      God dammit, check Peru who gave the Mighty Middle Finger to MS basically telling them to shut the fuck up open the specs and products sources and take it like the whinny bitches they are if they ever wanted Peruvian's taxpayer's money.
      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  7. It's about time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Microsoft wasn't about to be bullied around by the EU and they knew it. They tried their best to scare MS, but in the final analysis, the comissioners saw how rediculous their demands were and how far-reaching the implications would be for all businesses in the region.

  8. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft's "proposal to avoid paying the fine"? How is anything other than complying with the court's decision acceptable?

    If I steal a car and get a suspended sentence, then go out and steal another car, do I get to make a "proposal to avoid going to jail"?

    Microsoft broke the law. Why are they not facing the consequences of their actions? Since when do criminals get to decide how they should be punished?

    1. Re:Huh? by lotrtrotk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Read: $$$

    2. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since criminals could negotiate with money. see the bible is right

    3. 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
    4. Re:Huh? by Spad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The fine is question was related to Microsoft's Proposal for implementing the changes that the EU requested. They had until June 1st to submit said proposal or face a "late" fine.

      They've already been fined almost 500 million Euros for their original Monopoloy conviction.

    5. Re:Huh? by alecks · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Man, if I was Bill, I'd give the EU the middle finger and stop selling them my software. So it'll put a little dent in my billion dollar revenues... but fuck em. You don't like my os, don't buy it!

      --
      The Digital Couture Collection
    6. 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

    7. Re:Huh? by daniil · · Score: 1

      You are so the person i'd pick to run my company. So what if i'd be bankrupt in about two weeks, for hey, at least i'd still have my pride: noone would be able to say that i subjugated myself to my customers' demands.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    8. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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

      Looks to me like it's not that they are trying to avoid meeting the conditions, but they have simply offered their proposal for how to meet them, and the EU court says that it thinks their proposal fulfills all the requirements.

      The courts don't provide detail technical specifications. They basically said, "Be interoperable." Microsoft has to figure out the details of how to do so. Now that they've figured out how they would like to do it, they pass it back to the court to see if the court is happy with the method they have chosen. The court just said, "Yes, it looks good, but we're going to have some more people look at it just in case."

      Now, I'm sure Microsoft tried to walk a fine line, giving as little as possible while still avoiding the fine. Hopefully the next round of reviews will catch any of that.

    9. Re:Huh? by bahwi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, who cares if they are a bigger overall market? Or if they're computer market is just starting to grow rapidly, like it did in the US over the past 20 years? So what if the GDP is higher than in the US?

      So what? We all know Bill Gates NEVER did this for the money. =)

    10. Re:Huh? by John+Hurliman · · Score: 1

      If I steal a car and get a suspended sentence, then go out and steal another car, do I get to make a "proposal to avoid going to jail"?

      Off-topic from the article, but yes you do get to make a proposal to avoid going to jail. It's called a plea bargain; for example you could reach an agreement with the prosecuting attorney that you will have a suspended license for a couple years and serve x hours of community service along with going to remedial treatment in exchange for another suspended sentence. Facing the sentence written in the law is usually a last resort in all but the highest profile crimes.

    11. Re:Huh? by Stormmind · · Score: 1

      That would be great! All of the EU being forced to go alternatives, spending billions on the switch. Almost like another 2k-problem! Just imagine all the job-opportunities for us Open Source nerds!

    12. Re:Huh? by JamesTRexx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If he did that MS would lose a whole lot more than just the European market. The EU would pour a lot of money into development of OSS and maybe in a year or less you'd have your "desktop" BSD and GNU/Linux. Software companies all over the world would start porting their software to OSS platforms. And at that point the rest of the world would ask themselves why'd they pay for MS software when they can get most of the same for free. Although I see this thing happening anyway, MS doesn't want to speed up the process so they comply.

      --
      home
    13. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      I wish you were Bill Gates.

    14. Re:Huh? by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      This would do diddly-squat to hurt Europe. That's the problem with a business model based on "intellectual property": if a government doesn't support your business model, then there is very little you can do to "punish" them.

      All Europe would have to do is pass a few laws putting ALL of Microsoft's "intellectual property" into the public domain, including any future updates that Microsoft makes in other countries (and make it legal for anyone in Europe to get cracked/stolen versions of those updates). There'd be a ton of European companies providing support for European users of Windows, and all of the European companies would suddenly have a windfall of cash since they wouldn't have to pay Microsoft any licensing fees.

      A company which depends on "intellectual property" for a product instead of providing a real good or service is pretty much SOL if they go against the government.

    15. Re:Huh? by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So what if i'd be bankrupt in about two weeks, for hey, at least i'd still have my pride: noone would be able to say that i subjugated myself to my customers' demands.

      Customers aren't the one making the demands here, the EU is.

    16. Re:Huh? by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

      "Intellectual Property" - or in other words, an idea - is only the origin (voir: inspiration) for any product. The rest is mechanics and usability. A lacking of one or the other results in a crappy product. Period. The government may call a company's cards instead of "playing bluff" like the rest of us, but the government's actions on the product changes nothing about what the product is itself.

      I do think that the European government is off the mark though - they shouldn't be pounding one software shipping with another - they should be pounding practices like shipping computers with already-installed software.

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    17. Re:Huh? by Peeteriz · · Score: 1

      If there was any threat to their economy, the EU countries can void MS copyright, and allow any local company to copy and distribute MS products without paying Bill Gates.

      Governments make the laws, and MS has copyright protection only because governments consider it good for their economy. And without copyright protection MS doesn't really have anything at all.

    18. Re:Huh? by SoloFlyer2 · · Score: 0

      Yeah, your right bill gates didnt do it for the money...
      If he had he would have stoped along time ago...

      He does it because he wants to rule the world ... one peice of crappy software at a time :)

      --
      "I reject your reality, and substitute my own" - Adam Savage
    19. Re:Huh? by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      The government may call a company's cards instead of "playing bluff" like the rest of us, but the government's actions on the product changes nothing about what the product is itself.

      I'm not really sure what you're talking about. "Intellectual property" is not a product in any real sense of the word. It can be treated as a "product" only because the governments are enforcing laws which make control of "intellectual property" somewhat like a real thing.

      If a government does not enforce such laws, then there is no way a company which depends on "intellectual property" for its business model can "take its ball & go home" - at the very best, all it can do is "leave the ball & go home", and refuse to participate in the market anymore (not exactly the best situation for a company).

      Contrast that with a company which provides a REAL good or service - they could simply stop providing those goods or services to the offending market, and they will cause real hardship for people who depend on those goods & services no matter WHAT the laws of the foreign government says.

      As I stated before, "intellectual property" is not a real product, as much as "intellectual property" proponents like to pretend it is.

    20. Re:Huh? by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with you, and tried stating the same in my post - I'm sorry if it didn't come through clearly. No-one can protect an idea if it remains only an idea for sure.

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
  9. Why dose the EU need this money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    It's already getting enough from the oil for food scandal

    1. Re:Why dose the EU need this money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, the Coalition forces have taken over the oil for food racket? Now that truly is a scandal.

  10. even though the sticky question of "open source".. by tota · · Score: 1

    even though the sticky question of "open source" licenses was not fully resolved.
    Right, it sure isn't resolved at all!

    "..work group server developers interested in receiving interoperability information from Microsoft will be able to develop and sell their products on a global basis.."
    Major problem with this: this is at cost, and with objectionable terms.

    Sticky question indeed.

    --
    TODO: 753) write sig.
  11. This just in... by MirrororriM · · Score: 1
    Microsoft is *almost* committed to open source.

    What's this almost stuff? I smell a stall tactic...

    --
    Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
  12. An apple's fallen on my head. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    Um, hello? Where is everybody?!!

    Oh, there you are:

    http://apple.slashdot.org/

  13. Forgive my ignorance... by Ninwa · · Score: 1

    I'm not trying to troll but I've not heard of this story and the article didn't offer much insight. How did this come about, why is Microsoft in court for not providing interoptability with some technologies? If someone could explain the situation that'd be great, thanks. :]

    1. Re:Forgive my ignorance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Why don't you take your +1 karma bonus and just fucking google it.

    2. Re:Forgive my ignorance... by NetNifty · · Score: 1

      IIRC they were found guilty of violating anti-monopoly laws (using MS Windows to push another monopoly using WMP) and one of their punishments is to allow further integration by releasing documentation to allow this.

      --
      Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
    3. Re:Forgive my ignorance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maby you should ask the person responsable:

      http://europa.eu.int/comm/commission_barroso/kroes /

      There is a contact button.:)

  14. Good Timing by syntap · · Score: 2, Funny

    I guess it is pretty smart to get all of the Microsoft Antitrust issues worked out while the EU still exists in present form. Otherwise Microsoft's settlement may have to be made in half Lira, half Euro.

    1. Re:Good Timing by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      I guess it is pretty smart to get all of the Microsoft Antitrust issues worked out while the EU still exists in present form.

      And I consider it pretty unsmart of the EU to accept such a deal before July 10th. The EU is really not in a position to afford a third No, especially not from Juncker's home country...

    2. Re:Good Timing by Robotron23 · · Score: 0

      On the contrary, while the media has lapped up the Dutch and French "No" votes with a wave of sensationalism, the vote was hardly a vote of no confidence in the EU itself. All it represented was concern towards the fact too much power may go to Brussels. The EU is very much a stable organization, and though some difficulties will have to be overcome, they are by no means major. It will still function as a competant legislative body. So we don't have to worry about M$ somehow overturning this judgement in the future.

    3. Re:Good Timing by jawtheshark · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Regardless of what Juncker thinks... I think that a 500page constitution is a bit insane, and I will be voting on 10th July.

      Alas, I haven't made up my mind yet. "No" versus the size or "Yes" because I think Europe is the future. Logically seen, I shouldn't "sign" anything that I haven't read, so the only logical vote is "No".

      (besides, shouldn't your handle be "ArsèneLupin"... That is without two "n")

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    4. Re:Good Timing by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      Regardless of what Juncker thinks...

      "No" to get rid of Juncker ;-)

      Or, more seriously, "No" to protest against section II-77-2 ("intellectual property shall be protected"). Contrast this with the US constitution, which is much more measured in this regards and states: "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". As compared to the US clause, the European one seems to be a huge step back. The EU constitution will protect intellectual property regardless of whether this will promote progress (...software patents, wink, wink...) and potentially for an unlimited time. (Yes I know: US currently has software patents, while EU has not (yet). But potentially, SCOTUS could strike down software patents at any time, once a sufficiently motivated party brings suit).

      Considering the amount of US case law that used both limitations (must promote progress, limited time) to protect the citizens interests against the content industry ( Betamax case, etc.), this seems like a huge blunder. Or, more likely, a deliberate choice to give more power to the media conglomerates. And that's why I make a deliberate choice to vote no. Clauses protecting lobbies that are already overpowerful do not belong into a constitution.

      (besides, shouldn't your handle be "ArsèneLupin"... That is without two "n")

      ArseneLupin (with one n) exists, but has huge negative karma ;-)

    5. Re:Good Timing by jawtheshark · · Score: 1
      You don't really have to convince me. I've been thinking exactly the same as you. I made Journal Entry recently about the issue. There are some interesting views of my US friends attached to that journal. My main issue is the size, though the software patent stunt the EU pushed through illegaly still weight very heavy in my vision of the EU.

      As for getting rid of Jucker. Well, I didn't vote for him in the first place because I didn't have voting rights back then even though I was already a Luxembourger and was of voting age. I was very surprised that the CSV actually won.

      The problem is I am really Pro-Europe. For me it is a real dilemma.

      In the end it's a non binding referendum, so the government still will do whatever it wants. I don't trust Juncker to keep his word on resigning and following the "will of the people".

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    6. Re:Good Timing by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      As for getting rid of Jucker. Well, I didn't vote for him in the first place

      Neither did I (I voted mostly green).

      I was very surprised that the CSV actually won.

      Not that surprising if you consider that Luxembourg is one of the rare countries where voting is compulsory. So, at voting day, you've got lots of people in the voting booths that are not that interested in politics, and may not be aware of all the issues. So what do they do? They take what they consider "the safe road". CVS has been there always, so they can't be that bad, so "I can't do anything wrong by voting for them".

      If we hadn't compulsory voting, I'd be sure that CSV would have much less success.

      The problem is I am really Pro-Europe. For me it is a real dilemma.

      Me too. Additional source of dilemma is that the constitution does give more power to European parliament and National parliaments, and less to the council and commission. However, council and commission will still have too much power, and parliament will still be unable to propose laws (they can only vote on laws drafted by the commission, not roll their own).

      In the end it's a non binding referendum, so the government still will do whatever it wants.

      Given the current situation, the government is not really in a position to ignore it. The Chamber will have to vote the way the people has decided. And Juncker will need to show "political decency" ;-)

      I don't trust Juncker to keep his word on resigning and following the "will of the people".

      Well, last Friday, he has pretty much put himself in a situation where he no longer can ignore his "promise". If he won't resign on a no, he will, by his very own words, not have any political decency. Without last Friday's intervention, he would have been able to dismiss his "resignation promises" of last year ("that would have only applied if Luxembourg were the only country to say no..."), but with his statement of last Friday, he's got no way out...

    7. Re:Good Timing by jawtheshark · · Score: 1
      Neither did I (I voted mostly green).

      That's probably what I would have voted. However, for some strange reason, the voting lists are made in the spring of the year before the actual voting. I got my nationality in November 2003. Result: I couldn't vote. A real bummer, because one of the reasons I wanted to become Luxembourger was that I could finally vote for the nationals.

      Not that surprising if you consider that Luxembourg is one of the rare countries where voting is compulsory.

      You probably knew that I was actually aware of that. :-)

      Additional source of dilemma is that the constitution does give more power to European parliament and National parliaments

      I didn't read the constitution, but this is indeed what I heard too. This is indeed one of the points why I'd like to vote "Yes".

      he will, by his very own words, not have any political decency.

      Since when does a politician care about decency? Ponder about that for a while. Pulling through the software patent law was not what I call "decent". It was just morally wrong and illegal. I'm pretty sure he'll find a way out. Losing face or not... The earliest he would pay such "indecency" would be at the next national elections. That's still pretty far ahead in the future. Or do you really think that Luxembourgers will go out on the streets protesting that he should resign?

      Personally, what I'd like to see is that they throw away the current constitution and take the "white bearded thinkers" of Europe. Put them together in a big building and let them work out a maximum 5 page document (A4. Font should be 12pt Times Roman) that will be our constitution. They aren't allowed to leave that building until they have such a document and they all agree on it. Those thinkers should be philosphers, scientists and economists: no lawyers and politicians allowed.
      Of course, that's just a pipe dream ;-)

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    8. Re:Good Timing by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      You probably knew that I was actually aware of that. :-)

      Well, I just stated that for the benefit of the other readers...

      Since when does a politician care about decency?

      He doesn't. But he cares about the appearance of decency. And after plainly stating that "it is a matter of political decency to resign if all of the country is against the constitution that I helped to draft", it will be hard to keep that appearance if he then decide not to resign in spite of the no. Journalists and opposing parties will be all over him if he doesn't!

      Pulling through the software patent law was not what I call "decent".

      No, it wasn't. But as the common man is not aware of the issue, the politician can still keep an appearance of decency..

      The earliest he would pay such "indecency" would be at the next national elections.

      He would also lose face at the international negotiations which he is so fond of taking part at...

      Or do you really think that Luxembourgers will go out on the streets protesting that he should resign?

      No, not in Luxembourg. But you can bet that the question will come up in every single interview for the next couple of months. And Tweety will be happy about it too, because the Feierkrop will be so full of it for the next year and a half that there will be no space left to call Tweety by his name (maybe that's why he too is opposed to the constitution?)

      Personally, what I'd like to see is that they throw away the current constitution and take the "white bearded thinkers" of Europe. Put them together in a big building and let them work out a maximum 5 page document (A4. Font should be 12pt Times Roman) that will be our constitution.

      Good idea ;-) But let's give them some slack and allow 30 pages.

      They aren't allowed to leave that building until they have such a document and they all agree on it.

      And at that time, white smoke will come out of the chimney, and they'll announce habemus constitutionem.

  15. Industry Abuse by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Funny


    The next step is for the proposal to be "market tested" with other industry players before a final assessment is given by the EU.

    (Some time in the future...)


    EU: OK...our market testing period is over....what do you say, other industry players?

    Other Industry Players: (cringing under a withering stare from Microsoft) Oh yes...the proposal is very reasonable...most acceptable...

    EU: Are you OK? What happened to your face?

    M$: He fell down some stairs.

    OIP: (stammering) I fell down some stairs.

    ^_^
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Industry Abuse by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

      Market testing is over

      Now the proposal becomes proposal-RC1. Sevral months down the line it may eventually become Stable.

      I was quite shocked today to see that Debian Sarge got there first though :-)

      --
      Follow me
    2. Re:Industry Abuse by Jsprat23 · · Score: 1

      I have mod points, but I really want to mod this +1 Scary instead of Funny.

  16. Back Payments by the-dark-kangaroo · · Score: 0

    Will M$ have to make back payments for all of the days that they have done this?

    --
    If Carling made signatures they would be the best signatures in the world...
  17. FFS by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Look, we have them over a barrel, fine the bastards and get it over with.

    Hell while we're at it lets take them to court over using IE inbuilt into the OS as proof of killing other browsers chances.

    Even if they don't get done for it they will be forced to defend other browsers which would be great to see.

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:FFS by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      One problem: There's at least one browser gaining marketshare while IE's market share is slipping. Microsoft would point this out in any court case. They are trying to hammer out a decent upgrade with IE7 afterall. IE7 will probably be more of an upgrade than anything that's come out of the IE dev team since the move from IE3 to IE4. This is all thanks to competition (Firefox).

    2. Re:FFS by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

      Don't worry about it. If the EU are "almost" satisfied with Microsoft's proposals they can explain to them that they're "almost" having second thoughts about enforcing the fine.

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
    3. Re:FFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen to that.

      I couldn't care less if winblows ships with shittiest media player 9 or 10 with fugly skins. I totally hate this abomination, but it's rather easily avoided.

      However I would truly love to see IE disappear, and all of it's associated bugs, exploits, all the spyware and other crap (including IE-only pages).

      We'd have standards compliant, accessible pages that work across pretty much all browsers on all OSes (and less pwned windows boxes). That would truly make the internet a better place.

      What to include instead? Anything or nothing. Who cares. Pick one (Firefox, Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror, Galleon, Safari, ...), they're ALL better than IE!

    4. Re:FFS by ClosedSource · · Score: 2

      The market leading browser prior to IE was a non-standard browser. If MS had never entered the broswer market we'd probably be seeing "Best viewed in Netscape XX" on web pages.

      If you test the non IE browsers you mentioned I'll bet you'll find none of them are 100% compatabile with standards and none render pages exactly the same.

      There's a lot of valid critism's that apply only to IE but non-standard browsing isn't one of them.

    5. Re:FFS by wayland · · Score: 1

      Agree with you about the old Nescape being non-standards compliant. But there are degrees of standard compatibility, and just because someone is only 99% compatible, doesn't meant that you only need to be 66% compatible (numbers invented to illustrate a point).

      HTML isn't supposed to render exactly the same everywhere, but it is supposed to be readable everywhere. If it doesn't render readably on standards compliant browsers, that's the fault of the web page, not the browser.

    6. Re:FFS by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "If it doesn't render readably on standards compliant browsers, that's the fault of the web page, not the browser."

      Well the "standards compliant browser" is a rather theoretical construct. In the real world if a page doesn't render readably it could be the browser or the page.

      Of course from the point of view of the user the browser that renders the most pages readably is the best one. There's no virtue in rendering a page badly when you could have rendered it well just because you were strictly enforcing a standard.

    7. Re:FFS by utnow · · Score: 0

      yay... I build a car that uses a stereo... I don't give people the option to put a different stereo into my car... furthermore the stereo has a special cradle that won't allow it to easily be replaced with another one... I refuse to release the specs for my stereo. Apparently I'm a criminal!

    8. Re:FFS by masklinn · · Score: 1
      HTML isn't supposed to render exactly the same everywhere, but it is supposed to be readable everywhere. If it doesn't render readably on standards compliant browsers, that's the fault of the web page, not the browser.
      HTML is supposed to be readable everywhere where it's correctly implemented
      Internet Explorer doesn't fully implement HTML 4.01, nor does it implement XHTML 1.0 or 1.1 at all, nor does it even fully implement HTTP1.1 (another issue, but I may throw it in as well for some troll points)...

      It's awfully easy to create fully standard compliant very well written pages that get completely fucked up in MSIE, without even trying and while getting perfectly readable pages in just about any other browser (including text ones).
      Because MSIE is NOT a standard complant browser...
      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  18. 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.

    2. Re:Clarifying Register article by Keeper · · Score: 1

      Remember, GPL software is a subset of open source software ... Their license doesn't have to be GPL compatible.

  19. The real question is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    How does this effect Apple switching to Intel processors?

  20. M$ sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    the Microsoft people always interfere in everything

    Xanadu

  21. Slap on the wrist by mcc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    But the EU executive voiced satisfaction with Microsoft's proposed solution -- even though the sticky question of "open source" licenses was not fully resolved -- and said the plan would now be put to industry peers for their opinion.
    1. Gradually and systematically remove all your competitors from the market, except the open source ones.
    2. Gain freedom from regulators by agreeing to cooperate with your competitors, except the open source ones.
    3. ???
    4. Profit
    The ???, in case you're wondering, stands for "artificial barriers to entry".

    I can only hope they count SUSE as an "industry peer"...
    --
    Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
    1. Re:Slap on the wrist by HogynCymraeg · · Score: 1

      DAMN! I read that as "Slit on the wrist"!

  22. How much do you want to bet.... by suman28 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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." How much do you want to bet that this issue will slowly be pushed into the background and eventually disappear? Microsoft has always found a way out of such situations.

    1. Re:How much do you want to bet.... by gosand · · Score: 1
      How much do you want to bet that this issue will slowly be pushed into the background and eventually disappear? Microsoft has always found a way out of such situations.

      But at some point, someone will want to be made (somewhat) famous as the person who stood up to Microsoft. The evil US Corporation. Lots of people have backed down, few have prevailed. I would think that in and of itself, that would be a pretty big motivator.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    2. Re:How much do you want to bet.... by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      But at some point, someone will want to be made (somewhat) famous as the person who stood up to Microsoft. The evil US Corporation. Lots of people have backed down, few have prevailed. I would think that in and of itself, that would be a pretty big motivator.

      Isn't this why Yoda said that he had failed and had to go into exile?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re:How much do you want to bet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a real jewel in life, eh? Soooo much anger towards the US. So much hate for corporations. So much stupidity. Enjoy what remains of your sad pitiful life, k?

      Loser

    4. Re:How much do you want to bet.... by gosand · · Score: 1
      You must be a real jewel in life, eh? Soooo much anger towards the US. So much hate for corporations. So much stupidity. Enjoy what remains of your sad pitiful life, k?

      I have a great life, thank you. So are you clairvoyant? You sure seem to be able to jump to conclusions without much real information. If you were halfways intelligent, and had travelled outside of your trailer park, you would know that Microsoft is seen as an EVIL US Corporation in the rest of the world. (and yes, here in the US too) Because they are. They ruined companies with their tactics. But I digress. Yes, I am an American, I was born and raised here. I love what this country is supposed to be, and and sorely disappointed in it for how it behaves on the world stage. It is somewhat embarassing. But you probably don't understand, as your worldliness probably consists of NASCAR. It's not your fault, you are probably just ignorant. But you really should get out more. Really. Ahh, but you are a Coward, aren't you.

      You sound like the angry one.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    5. Re:How much do you want to bet.... by glacote02 · · Score: 1
      I take the bet. Be sure that it won't. For one simple reason: there are smart and well-educated people at the EC MTF which definetely won't "forget" about it. Trust me on that one. You even have the Commissioner (head of anti-turst authorities all over Europe) specifically claiming it.

      On the other hand the probability that the European Court buys the "trade secret/valuable intellectual property" argument and fails to get the "interoperability with the only remaining competitor" one is definetely positive. Hence the provision of only non-innovative parts being made public. I am still confident although a set-back is possible.

      I hope this demonstrates the strong capabilities of the EC to understand the problems and stand firm on the really important issues.

  23. Re:But will Microsoft have a monopoly in the futur by GweeDo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How is apple "hedgin into Microsoft's PC market"? Apple is switching their CPU...nothing else. Still gotta buy the Mac to run the OS X...this doesn't affect MS like you are trying to make it sound. +1 Interesting...hurm...good work mods!

    --
    Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
  24. great by cahiha · · Score: 2, Insightful
    But the EU executive voiced satisfaction with Microsoft's proposed solution -- even though the sticky question of "open source" licenses was not fully resolved -- and said the plan would now be put to industry peers for their opinion.

    Uh, huh. Those "industry peers" are likely still companies wedded to proprietary software. Microsoft loves to put out licenses that permit commercial implementations (even royalty-free) but are incompatible with open source. "Industry peers" are not the right group to ask--legislators need to think for themselves.
    1. Re:great by jimicus · · Score: 1

      legislators need to think for themselves.

      How many legislators in ANY country know the first thing about any given industry?

      Usually none. So they do what seems sensible - go speak to the experts in that industry. Who are the experts?

      Generally the group who is most persuasive at convincing the legislators that they're the experts.

  25. $5 million fine per day! by beej · · Score: 2, Funny

    At that rate Microsoft will run out of cash in 2037! Sell! Sell!

    1. Re:$5 million fine per day! by Curate · · Score: 1

      At that rate Microsoft will run out of cash in 2037!

      Yeah, right. The day Microsoft runs out of cash is the day my UNIX box can no longer remember the time of day!

  26. EU violating trade soverignty via Microsoft. by inteller · · Score: -1, Troll

    By forcing Microsoft to sell this version in other countries, the EU is effectively dumping inferior products on other countries that don't want it. Since when does the EU say what I can and cannot buy (or want to buy) here in the US? The EU is stepping WAY over their boundaries here. I'm sorry they need to feel validation in their decision to bring about an inferior product, but I don't want any part of it. I certainly don't want to here the thousands of users calling up and costing companies useless time and manhours about "where is Media Player" because the EU has forced Microsoft to sell it in other countries. The EU has become a joke. But what isn't funny is the lengths they will go to in order to prove their relevance (or lack thereof).

  27. Communication standard are like language by what+about · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What would you think if some big company asked you to "licence" the right to talk English, or French, or Chineese ?

    Well, this is what Microsoft is doing. You want to talk with Microsoft ? then you have to "licence".

    Even better similarity. A Company creates a new language and slowly have half of the world speak it. For the other half of the world you have to "licence" the fact that you can talk that new language.

    1. Re:Communication standard are like language by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What would you think if some big company asked you to "licence" the right to talk English, or French, or Chineese ?

      Well, English is Open Source with many homes, French is BSD with the official provider the Academie Francaise (and some variants in Canada etc), and Chinese is a bunch of languages - Mandarin for example is one.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  28. Microsofts Proposal by DrugCheese · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know it's not fair if Microsoft proposed it.

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
  29. Clever EU by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    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."

    Clever EU. To monitor, with other industry players, the compliance. Unlike in the US where it was pretty much business as usual once everyone left the court house.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Clever EU by DigitlDud · · Score: 1

      How is this clever? The industry players they monitor are Microsoft's competitors. You think they're ever going to be happy until they get a huge advantage over Microsoft? Real Networks for example, sure Microsoft ships Windows with Media Player, but it's not like Real's product would have beaten it anyway. Real Player is an ad-ridden piece of crap in comparison.

      At least in the US it's understood that when you have a REAL free market economy, you have to allow for winners from time to time. It's not like Microsoft will have the market majority FOREVER. Empires rise and fall regardless of how big they are.

    2. Re:Clever EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the EU must get approval from their Real overlords. Who needs a constitution when you have MS competitors to run the show?

  30. FUD is everywhere by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

    The release of an open source implementation of any of these protocols would constitute irremediable harm
    How, exactly, do you conclude this? If opening the specs doesn't do irremediable harm, and letting people write code to the specs doesn't do irremediable harm, and letting them sell the software they write (or, for that matter, give it away) doesn't do irremediable harm, how exactly does the release of said code under a F/OS licence do additional irremediable harm?

    Surely you aren't claiming the GPL is so viral that it would somehow climb back up the chain of derivation and taint Microsoft?

    --MarkusQ

    1. Re:FUD is everywhere by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1
      The release of an open source implementation of any of these protocols would constitute irremediable harm

      How, exactly, do you conclude this?
      If you have a license to write code based on a certain protocol and to distribute compiled code based on that knowledge, then someone seeking to implement the protocol still needs to reverse engineer the communication between client and server. If the source to that application is distributed, however, then it can be used as a template by those who want to implement the protocol without paying the license fee, which, at least in principle, compensates Microsoft for the use of the protocol.
    2. Re:FUD is everywhere by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

      If you have a license to write code based on a certain protocol and to distribute compiled code based on that knowledge, then someone seeking to implement the protocol still needs to reverse engineer the communication between client and server. If the source to that application is distributed, however, then it can be used as a template by those who want to implement the protocol without paying the license fee, which, at least in principle, compensates Microsoft for the use of the protocol.
      But the whole point of the sanction was that Microsoft had to let other people write code that interoperated with Microsoft code, without having to pay a licensing fee and without having to reverse engineer anything. That's why they are supposed to (and have agreed to) open up the definitions to competitors that want to write such software.

      And as for them deserving compensation, this is supposed to be a punishment. What kind of bizaro world is it where criminals get to dicker over their compensation package before agreeing to accept their punishment?

      --MarkusQ

    3. Re:FUD is everywhere by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1
      Sorry, Markus, I know you're drooling over this, but this is simply stupid.
      And as for [Microsoft] deserving compensation, this is supposed to be a punishment
      No. The fine was punishment. The rest of the order is an attempt to create competition going forward. The EC is going to try to get zero-cost licensing for "non innovative" (their words) features, but I'm really dubious about that.

      What kind of bizarro world is this? One where the EV wants a bird in the hand. If they ask for too much from MS...well, look at what happened to the USDOJ. The Appellate court trimmed their original proposal down to less that Microsoft had offered during negotiations prior to Judge J's original decision -- they wound up worse off than they would have ahd they "caved".
    4. Re:FUD is everywhere by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

      Sorry, Markus, I know you're drooling over this, but this is simply stupid.
      I don't know how to respond to this for the simple reason I don't have any idea what it means.
      No. The fine was punishment. The rest of the order is an attempt to create competition going forward. The EC is going to try to get zero-cost licensing for "non innovative" (their words) features, but I'm really dubious about that.
      I will grant that, as a Microsoft employee, you have probably been following this in more detail than I have, and accept your assertion.

      But it still doesn't change (or answer) the fundemental question: if the effect of the rulling is that Microsoft must allow others to interoperate, how could it possible cause different harm based on the licence of the competitor's software?

      --MarkusQ

      P.S. And as for the retraction strawman--that at some point you may get a reversal and demand that the code be removed--the exact same logic appiles to F/OSS-licenced software: code has been removed from F/OSS in exactly this sort of situation in the past, and there's no reason to believe it won't be in the future. In fact, several players (e.g. SCOX) have refused to detail "infringing" code for fear that it would be removed too quickly.

      So yes, bizaro world.

    5. Re:FUD is everywhere by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1
      This is where you're wrong:
      And as for the retraction strawman--that at some point you may get a reversal and demand that the code be removed--the exact same logic appiles to F/OSS-licenced software: code has been removed from F/OSS in exactly this sort of situation in the past, and there's no reason to believe it won't be in the future.
      The release of the code itself is an irrevocable step. Once it is out there and copied, there's no tracking its spread -- the algorithms behind the behavior become available without restriction. As a result, the release of such source makes the value of the license zero.

      Think of it in the context of the GPL. No matter how "viral" the General Public License is, it's universally acknowledged that if I take a body of GPL code, describe its behavior in human-readable terms, and hand those terms off to a third party who's never seen the code, then the third party is unrestricted by the original license. Even if the original code were pulled back, that information would not be lost.
  31. Is it Good Timing or is it MSFT EU currency spec? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I guess it is pretty smart to get all of the Microsoft Antitrust issues worked out while the EU still exists in present form. Otherwise Microsoft's settlement may have to be made in half Lira, half Euro.

    The European Monetary Union is totally unaffected by all the EU constitution process. The only possible impact is in countries proposed for inclusion, namely Turkey. So, the entire fallout from this is that nothing changed except people who live there said "Slow Down!".

    Don't believe the FUD.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  32. how many more chances are they given? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't Microsoft already miss the second deadline given by the EU commission? How many more chances are they given? This is unbelievable!

  33. EU Satisfied???? by Inzkeeper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article title is too funny!
    Compare that to other news sites:
    TheReg/Tom's: MS and EU inch towards agreement
    InternetNews: Microsoft And Europe Getting Closer
    Groklaw: Microsoft is still sparring with the EU Commission

    Does that sound like the EU is satisfied?
    [IRONY] What kinda pro-MS rag is this?! [/IRONY]

    1. Re:EU Satisfied???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can imagine what Groklaw's headline will be when the dispute is completely resolved:

      "Microsoft complies with EU sanctions but EU still farts in their general direction."

  34. Unacceptable. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1
    This is unacceptable. In my opinion, the EU should fine Microsoft double their daily profits each day, and do the following with the money:
    • Distribute half of it directly to a variety of free software projects that will benefit all of Europe.
    • Use the other half to buy enormous advertising campaigns all over the world in favor of free software and against proprietary software in general and Microsoft software specifically.
    That would be an acceptable alternative.
    1. Re:Unacceptable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah great, your solution is to screw over every company the EU is trying to protect with this court case by advocating helping open source for them. In what way is that going to help sun and real and IBM the people this case made to protect (don't even try and say this case had anything to do with the users).I wish some morons would think before posting.

    2. Re:Unacceptable. by SA3Steve · · Score: 1

      Why does that sound fair? Why should the EU be able to fine it for a % of its world profts? Maybe the European profits...

      Should China now decide that they don't agree with having a sound player in the computer and be able to charge a % of the world profits?

      How about when Australia decides it doesn't like having a picture viewer in the operating system?

    3. Re:Unacceptable. by d_jedi · · Score: 1

      Then Microsoft can release their new ad campaign:
      Remember kids, when you program open source, you're programming COMMUNISM.. which would be exactly what your proposal would amount to.

      --
      I am the maverick of Slashdot
    4. Re:Unacceptable. by jawtheshark · · Score: 1
      Maybe the European profits..

      You don't understand corporate accounting. Global companies (like Microsoft) can pretty much shift around their "money" at will over the world. If they'd get a big fine on "European profits", Microsoft will just make sure the official reports state that they made no profit (or even better a loss) in the European sector. Added bonus: "See, we are really hurt by your sanctions... It's bad for the European economy".

      That's why "World Profits".

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  35. If Microsoft had any balls by twinstead · · Score: 0, Redundant

    They would up and tell the EU to piss off and no longer sell or support or manufacture their products there.

    I'd give the EU about 3 days to come crying back to Bill's door.

  36. What does this mean for Samba? by michael2l · · Score: 1

    Anybody have some thoughts on this what might mean for projects like Samba and Samba-tng? It seems like the article made a subtle reference to them in noting Microsoft's aversion to the code they make available ending up in open source projects. I've got a lot win2k3 servers I'd like to replace with Samba if they ever become fully functional as domain controllers within Active Directory. Does this improve the chance of that happening?

  37. Not to mention all of the internationals... by leonbrooks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...who would drop MS-Windows etc like a smoking potato globally if they couldn't keep their European branches updated, and the companies headquartered in Europe who would require their outliers to follow suit.

    That happy thought should sustain me through the day.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  38. how many more deadlines? enough is enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i wonder how many more deadlines the EU wants to give Microsoft. they already missed two before just to get another extension. if the EU continues this games nobody takes them serious anymore. enough is enough!

  39. Re:even though the sticky question of "open source by d_jedi · · Score: 2, Funny

    So you're saying Microsoft...

    gasp ..

    expects to be PAID for their work?

    That's so COMMUNIST of them!..
    wait...

    --
    I am the maverick of Slashdot
  40. EU affraid of Microsoft by necromcr · · Score: 0

    Microsoft broke the law. Why are they not facing the consequences of their actions? Since when do criminals get to decide how they should be punished?

    Maybe they (EU) were nice to them because they feared their legal copies of Windows XP would void EULA and be destroyed. But my bet is on the minesweeper...

    --
    No more I say.
  41. Microsoft logic by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

    I see. So Microsoft is willing to graciously accept the court's ruling and open its APIs, provided that people don't learn to use them, or do anything that would allow other to learn to use them.

    Personally, I'd call that non-complience.

    --MarkusQ

  42. Troll?? Who, me??? by Joe+Jarvis · · Score: 1

    IN SOVIET RUSSIA, Microsoft satisfies eYOU.