Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Set To Be Fined $2.4M a Day
Nexum writes "The BBC is reporting on a European Union threat to fine Microsoft up to $2.4m a day for their non-compliance with the European Commission's demand that Windows be opened up. Back in March 2004 Microsoft was ordered to open up its Windows operating system by way of making documentation available that would assist work on interoperability with other systems, specifically: 'non-Microsoft work group servers [should be able to] achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers'. According to the article, Brussels has found MS to have not complied with the ruling, and, sounding somewhat exasperated, EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes has given MS a 5 week deadline before the $2.4m/a day fines begin."
Bet you wish it was just another pie now, dontcha' Gates!
Would MS even feel a $2.4M/day pinch?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
I wonder how they will wrangle their way out of this one?
How about a 24million a day fine!
The trick is to bleed the giant slowly. If the fines are too big, Microsoft goes home and the EU is stuck with Linux crap that's unusable for anyone with an IQ under 130. But with little 2.4million a day fines, Microsoft stays in the game and EU bureacrats get new Paris offices.
Back in March 2004 Microsoft was ordered to open up its Windows operating system by way of making documentation available that would assist work on interoperability with other systems, specifically
Can they by law do that? That just seems fraked up to me. IMO M$ should have no obligation to release anything unless they wanted to.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
This is just dumb, they shouldn't have to force microsoft to pay fines. If they don't like the fact that they don't provide the documentation that they want, they should not buy their software in the first place. Microsoft never said (that I know of) that they were required to use Windows.
--
Get your Free MacMini here
Imo a fixed number for fines is all wrong. large companies can afford to pay it because actually playing by the rules is more expensive for them :/
it should be % based on their global income, that way it would "hurt" both large and small companies equally in terms of how badly they are affected by it.
still, should provide a bit of insentive for ms to hurry up and comply
Just how can the EU make Microsoft pay this?
Is today pro-Microsoft or anti-Microsoft?
I left my cheat-sheet at home...
"Microsoft Set To Be Fined $2.4M a Day"
That's what those bastards get for shutting down New York with that transit strike.... Oh, wait...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
And M$ will predictably wait until the last minute to provide documentation. I'm sure the documents that M$ provides will be bare minimum in scope just to get off the hook. Nothing to see here. Move along...
My humor is probably your flamebait
and they could 'recalculate' the fine to be 2.4 dollars a day.
The Luddites were ahead of their time.
That's it. I'm moving all my servers to Samba. This afternoon. Period
Register the editry.
That would be good news ! Guess what, there is another solution...
And people wonder why the continent's economy is slipping into oblivion. Socialist policies like this never help economies, they destroy them.
I agree completely. Then again, 2.4 million per day comes out to $876 million for the year. Even MS would feel that and it wouldn't do much for the stock price either. Even then, I'd like to see the EU collect. That would REALLY be interesting!
How long before we see the 'Microsoft disclosure documentation of non-Microsoft work group servers for dummies' book?
"they have to respect the laws and governments of that market, no matter what those laws may be"
Next you'll be saying Presidents aren't above the law. That Vivendi can't push a French law through at Christmas making sharing a copy of music track with your mother a Euro300000 fine and 3 years in prison offence. Or that the *wife* of the CEO of Vivendi, can't push a similar law through the EU parliament at short notice.
The positively Un American and anti-corporation and therefore probably illegal.
Article 22 of unwritten law says Corporations can do whatever the fuck they want, as long as they claim jobs will be lost. Microsoft will simply invoke Article 22, say "Jobs will be lost in Europe because of this ruling" and it will be dropped.
This is about as asinine as suing an open source company for making their code public...
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
MS is closed source software company. on what ground do Euro have the rights to ask them to open up their software? that's like asking Coke to give away how they make their soda.
Is this another Henry VIII? Are they trying fo fund the OS of England?
Bury me in mashed potatoes.
It's all been said, it's all been done... :)
I'm not sure Microsoft's shareholders would share your sentiment. I'd like to see the market reaction to that announcement: "Our customer base is now halved."
London's finest organic fairtrade coffee
Enough said.
Okay, now that we have established that we should fine companies for their monopolistic practices, who's next? Airbus? Itunes? Wine & Cheese? And if Microsoft refuses to pay the fine? What could they possibly do? They can't uninstall Windows.
They should have a caption contest for that photo of Bill Gates.
Mine would be: SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE!
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Is it file formats? Kernel interfaces? Network protocols? Or are we looking a lot more low level?
Do you know how big the EU market actually is? Add the fact that it's a single trade zone.
That's pretty attractive for any business, public or private.
Go ahead, mod me flamebait or overrated. But keep in mind that I administrate and work with both Linux and Windows for a living, and I actually have much more Windows experience and education under my belt. That being said, if I had a choice in the matter the servers I work with would be 100% *nix.
Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
>"ok...well see you later Europe."
Of course you would. This would be following:
Security... well see you later!
Interoperability... well see you later!
Open standards... well see you later!
Competitive prices... well see you later!
Eventually all this will (if it hasnt already) bite them serverly in the ass. Losing the Europe market isn't an option. Its huge. The stockholders would get management replaced if they pulled a stunt like that. Not to mention the EU is right and is doing what America is unable or unwilling to do herself.
What is the population of europe? A few hundred million people? Now if most of those people are buying computers with windows installed MS stands to loose alot of money if they just abandon europe. Either way it'll be interesting to see how it pans out.
Good Job EU... At 2.4 million dollars a day it will only take 40 years (and some change) to deplete their funds entirely.
This just in! 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.
Microsoft is only in Europe because that increases shareholder value. Microsoft can't leave Europe as long as there is potential for profit.
That means Microsoft will take it up the rear and smile while trying to find other ways to maximize profit because otherwise the share price drops and people have to start selling their boats and stuff.
Not even the Steve Jobs can afford to take revenge despite shareholder interests.
So does this mean that I can declare myself a sovereign entity and leverage fines on Microsoft too? I mean, just because they've been around for years before me doesn't mean that I can't make some new laws for my new governing body and then fine the hell out of them!
Seriously though, the EU has no credibility at all, and I don't see why America and companies put up with so much crap from them.
They can't leave Europe. Not selling Windows to Europe could lead to two possible scenario's, and both are bad for MS.
The first scenario is that the EU decides that it's computers are so important that it will just use unauthorized copies.
The second, even worse scenario is that Europe would adopt Linux as it's primary OS. Once the EU starts using Linux the market for third-party Linux software will explode. This in turn will lead to the removal of the last show-stopper problems for Linux (whatever they might be).
Suddenly most of the reasons _not_ to use Linux in the USA would vaporize, and then MS would be in real trouble.
Thus, leaving the EU market would create just the kind of opportunity that Linux (and other OS'es) would need to become dominating.
The best incentive for any organization is an exponentially increasing fine.
for(Fine=$1; OrganizationObeysTheLaw() = false ; Fine = Fine*2) {
WaitOneDay();
}
So does this mean - as a precedent - that the model of proprietary code is "over" ?
I'm not at all comfortable with that decision being handled by "extra market forces" - aka government. AKA, men with guns.
If the market wants MS to open up, the market should decide it. In the long term, I believe this is exactly what will happen - MS will have to adapt and compete or die off. Part of this adaptation will be better interoperability; but I would doubt that the proprietary model would end altogether.
As another take on this, many here claim that open source code is the equal to freedom of speech. And I agree with that. But then, what does that say when you advocate forceable openness of code? Does that indicate the reverse of the analogy: no private speech?
In summation, as bad as MS is, the government is worse.
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
mod parent up!
Sweet. Time to hook myself up with an Apple if Microsoft are physically unable to trade in this country ;)
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
This isn't stupid. When you do business in some foreign country, then you have to respect that countries laws. Earlier this week ABN AMRO, a large Dutch bank, was fined (in the USA) 80 M$ for violating USA banking laws.
If European businesses have to obey US law when doing business in the USA, then American businesses have to obey Europen law when doing business in Europe. And MS violated European laws repeatedly, so now they have to pay - just like any other compagny violating European laws.
After all, MS doesn't have to do business in Europe. If they don't like Europe and it's laws, then they are free to leave.
The EU and/or individual EU members could ban Microsoft from its/their markets without anyone having to uninstall windows. Like in China everyone would be able to continue to have their windows-y goodness. Local contractors and companies would still be just as available to provide support... and you can be sure nobody would check for windows' authenticity.
The only one that loses out is some insignificant American company, Microsoft. Because of course the European branches will pretty much have ceased to exist by then--and the microsoft hackers will have all found lucrative jobs with lignux distro makers.
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
First the French legalizing file sharing, now this. Someone pinch me please...I think I'm dreaming.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
I agree. Microsoft shouldn't be under any liability to sell to Europe. Now is the time for MS to flex their muscle and stop the EU from taking advantage of it. If the EU doesn't like the product then use something else. That is the way the rest of the world operates.
Of course if you did that then you'd be lynched by your shareholders straight away. Europe is a huge market and for a company that mostly relies on a monopoly to boost competitors out, and for a company whose products don't interoperate at all with other products of the same class, even Microsoft wouldn't last very long without Europe.
I hate Microsoft just as much as the next guy, but come on. The US needs to start fining France I guess now for legalizing file sharing. Let's fine China manufacturers cause they are exporting too many goods.
Let's fine European car manufacturers $5 million/day because their steering wheel is on the wrong side of the car.
This isn't a problem with the OS not playing well as much as it is a political response because they don't like losing a ton of money on exports toward a piece of software they don't feel is worth it.
There are about 100 OSs out there. Are they going to fine all of the ones that don't have a "feature" or documentation that they don't like? What's next? Applications? If Windows doesn't let you do something that is important for your group, THEN DON'T USE IT!
The EU should stay out of our business.
Trading in the EU is the EU's business! No company has the right to trade in the EU without being subject to it's laws.
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
All of you morons who advise MS above to simply stop trading in the EU are simply insane.
Aside from the US (im assuming you idiots are Americans)the next major service industries full stop are in EU and yes the EU is actually a very very big place for both people and business numbers.
wake the hell up and get your American head out of your American Ass.
Hehe.. we slashdoted bbc ;-)
why the EU has this kind of power over Microsoft? I thought that Microsoft is a U.S. based company that must obey U.S. laws. Anyway, not that I'm a Microsoft fanboi or anything, but while I do see a tremendous upside to Microsoft providing documentation to enable (better) interoperbility with other Operating Systems, I also see a huge downside. A downside where it's even easier to create viruses and worms that cripple Windows, given an intimate knowledge of it's propritary inner workings. I am just playing devil's advocate here. I would be all for Microsoft to share some knowledge with us, as it could make the computing world that much nicer, but I don't think it will ever happen.
Of course if you did that then you'd be lynched by your shareholders straight away. Europe is a huge market and for a company that mostly relies on a monopoly to boost competitors out, and for a company whose products don't interoperate at all with other products of the same class, even Microsoft wouldn't last very long without Europe
*cough* China *cough* India *cough*
In a few years, neither the US nor Europe will matter that much to the bottom line.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Everyone mark your calendars:
Dec 22nd
Different People Have Differend Opinions On Slashdot Day
Celebrate responsibly.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
If the EU works like the US, a government finding of a public sector problem opens the floodgates for numerous lawsuits against the company in the private sector. That is, if the US gov't were to say "Microsoft is evil", then, a thousand lawyers would pop up, saying, see, "the gov't says MS is evil, give us some of their oney".
As it is, I would still expect that some enterprising lawyer in the USA would probably have the cahoneys to site EU actions as precedent in a US court.
This is my sig.
Anybody contemplating giving any money to the EU needs to be aware that their auditors have refused to sign-off the EU's accounts for last 11 or so years because the organisation is so corrupt.
Microsoft should tell them to stuff it.
NOBODY has to pay MS anything. EVERYBODY in the EU has to pay towards the bunch of theives in Brussels.
The rules tend to change when you hold a virtual monopoly of something as important economically as an operating system. If other companies are going to be allowed to conduct business in areas that need to somehow interface with Windows, then they need some basic information (especially since they are trying to outlaw any form of reverse engineering). Otherwise you end up in a situation where Microsoft is the only company that can even provide other forms of software.
> If i was microsoft i would say "ok...well see you later Europe."
If only they would!
* ring ring. ring ring *
Ah yes, hello. Can I speak to my broker, please? Thank you. Hello. Yes, I'd like to buy as much stock as possible in Apple, please. Yes. And SuSE, too. Yes. Lots. I've reason to believe a rather large market might be opening up for them in the near future.
Oh, and unload that Microsoft stock, too. Yeah. Getting into a trade war with Brussels. Yeah. I don't know what they were thinking either. OK. Thanks. Bye now.
* click *
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
How will judge (and how, when) if the documentation is sufficient? I can easily see MS giving some ultra-thin documentation just one day before fine-day. Then waiting for an evaluation and getting a new order to re-write a more descriptive documentation. Repeat this forever. I am from Greece and this is the tactic followed by the government when we are fined for not doing something according to EU rules. Extend, extend, extend... (I am not saying this is a good thing. I am just saying that it works in the slow framework of the legal system)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Microsoft didn't abuse their monopoly with Windows Server systems. Period. The abuse was when the bundled Internet Explorer and Media Player. This is absurd as saying they abused their monopoly to get Office at the top, they did not.
This is equal to a habitual speeder getting pulled over for the 10th time in a month, and the penalty is his wife can no longer work. The justification; she makes allot of money and bought him the car. Should we tell MS that they can no longer sell Office unless they give Open Office their source code too?
MS server api/code being required to be exposed is border line criminal in my opinion. This is MS IP (good or bad it's theirs), and forcing an Open Source model on the world is a dangerous road... regardless of your opinion on OSS.
This is an attempt to throw a bone at competitors of Microsoft (e.g. Novell, various Linux distros, UNIX, etc.), but it doesn't help the companies that were hurt by the monopoly abuse (e.g. Netscape and Real, of course they settled out of court). The fact that the foes of Microsoft resort to beating them on the server front like this just goes to show you that MS really has made a good product with Windows 2003. This decision may help the Linux community play ball in a windows world, but that punishment has nothing to do with the crime.
The cold hard truth is that this has very little to do with MS or monopolies. The EU is just trying to hurt the US economy by hurting the largest American company. They fined them about a billion dollars already, XP N, and various other penalties.
Again, Microsoft did not abuse their monopoly with any version of the server systems (not to mention they charge allot for it). They got big market share quickly because the small to medium sized companies were ignored by Novell and Sun (major players at the time). NT 3.51 and NT 4 gave MS a large market share because they targeted a group that needed the systems, but had been ignored until then. Small companies get big, and when they did they already were using MS... so they stuck with it. It was a good strategy, and not illegal. Novell's bad business moves aren't Microsoft's fault.
Flame me if you want, but this is a bad ruling.
They could stop selling XP and only sell Win 98 ME, and open up that. Or they could make a special version of XP for Europe without the features they're being compelled to open up. They could call it Win FU.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Someone Give Microsoft legal chief Brad Smith some mints.
The Shit coming out of his mouth is horrid.
Just the picture of Gates makes it worth-while to at least LOOK at TFA...
Microsoft gives out more that just a punny 876 million a year in settlements. Last year they paid out over 4 billion just on settlements?
I think the EU is just using this as a cash cow.
N
Odd thing, for some reason a lot more people then a few percent seemed to be able to work with Linux long before Windows ever made an appearance. Of course they called it unix in those days but what's in a name?
Earlier computer systems were even more primitive and being operated NOT by MIT graduates but by a girl promoted from the typing pool. For that matter how do you think the earliest word processors and such worked? Point and click? Nor were they being used by harvard graduates. Just girls with barely a diploma in home economics.
Nah, linux is easy. It is just called hard by the amazingly lazy who do not want to be bothered having to relearn their leet button clicking skills.
In the real world, people have used all kinds of systems and continue to do so. You would be suprised how many companies still run their essential software via ancient telnet terminals that make you wish you were running DOS (oh okay maybe not DOS).
Here is a tip for succesfull management of your employees. Do not hire people with skills if office package X (and that includes oOO). Hire people with an average intelligence and tell them I pay your wages, I choose the software, here is a manual. Any person with a IQ above room temperature will get the hint.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
if you were ms, i would tell you
"oh, please, please do not, our economies will crush, we will beg you to come back and have govt agreements with you later - please don't leave us !"
Rich
Paris released a memo saying they would fully support MS, and whatever decisions they made if the replaced the MS Word paper clip with a rendition of Jacques Chirac.
... or "You're a peon."
"You're right, I did lose 2.4 million dollars yesterday. I expect to lose 2.4 million dollars today. I expect to lose 2.4 million dollars tomorrow. You know Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of 2.4 million dollars a day, I'll have to close this place in... 60 years"
</citizen_kane>
Shades of Grayden
Micro$oft buys Europe, details at 11!
You'll find its rather closer to six hundred million. And all in a single trade zone, so yes, its a rather large juicy market.
Thats only 876mill a year... thats chump change for billy. Stupid fine none the less.
I often get the impression that the yanks on this site think they outnumber the limeys by a huge factor. In fact there's only about five times as many (300 million to to 60 million).
Now add in Germany, Turkey, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, The Netherlands, Greece, Portugal, Belgium, Hungary and a few more to get the EU, and you're up to about half a billion. That's half as big again as the US, and could easily scale to be more than half the licensed users of MS products.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
that would probably piss some people off if europe actually had half of MS's users. Not to mention... what do you think the odds are of EU people and countries just buying "US" versions of the software and having them imported? Hell, MS could start selling ISO's of windows on their site for download... good luck regulating that EU ;)
Actually, MS does have to do business in Europe for the simple reason that if they withdraw from a major market, something will replace their products. It doesn't matter if that something is Linux or something else, what ever it was would gain a huge market base and may just turn around and start to eye other areas in which to expand. Oops a viable competitor is born.
I would have to agree.
I would be among the first to point fingers at Microsoft when the mess up (and I do it every day), but this is ridiculous. I would tell the EU fine... fine us $2.4M a day... and I would not pay it. And if they didn't like it, then close up all European operations, and do not sell any products in Europe anymore.
Now, this would not happen, but, it would send a message. I am not for monopolies or anything, but I am not for government intervention in such things, either. I love Linux, and I could probably get by without M$, if I chose... so could the EU... but, the job loss would not help their economy, and it doesn't need any more problems.
It is strongarm tactics, and Microsoft should use them right back.
Someone mentioned the shareholders not liking the loss of European business... I am pretty sure the shareholders would like paying a $2.4M/day fine or opening up IP to competitors either. At least if they offer to close down EU ops... they lose the overhead and the headaches, too. Seems like the lesser of two evils, from the shareholder perspective. And considering that I own mutual funds that have Microsoft, I guess that is from the horse's mouth.
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
IQ does not correlate perfectly with IQ performance, specially at the high end of the curve.
And you're kidding right? The only time early UNIX machines were approached by people with IQs bellow 140 was when they were being transported from one place to another, and that's only when those people were idly standing near the truck - other than that even the truck drivers and the janitors who cleaned the rooms they were stored in held at least one PHD.
Actually as of 2000 it was 729,966,641. (http://www.geohive.com/global/geo.php?xml=idb&xsl =idb&par1=eu)
orangeacid
If Internet Explorer was locked-out, or it was made extremely difficult to operate with Apache, there would be an outcry.
If Apache was closed-source and used a proprietary protocol, Firefox was closed-source, and Apache and Firefox were developed by the same company - providing seamless integration between the two - and if Microsoft was given no help to allow its browser to operate with Apache, I'm sure that Bill Gates wouldn't just sit down and say "Ah well, fair's fair."
Microsoft has had plenty of time to address similar issues that it has brought about, and the company knew of the consequences.
What's to complain about?
What other option does the EU have?
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Sad sad day. Europeans are pretty spun to think this is freedom at work. This is government coercion at it's finest. First it's MS then it's you..
Hey, let the poor guy down gently. Its not his fault that his US Government issued map ends east of New York and West of California with the phrase 'Here be Dragones!'.
For anyone who hasn't read the article, click on the link just to see that stunned look on Bill's face. It is priceless!
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
While it might be the most visible one, at least in the press, Linux is hardly the only OS waiting in the wings to fill the Windows vacuum. Some organizations would be quite happy with Solaris on the desktop, for example (the airline I used to work for was already doing that in a few areas anyway), and even platforms like eComStation or FreeBSd would have a shot at winning a certain percentage of the market.
Since there isn't a monolithic "Linux" out there, and since there would be tremendous incentive for various parties to create a user-friendly Linux desktop in the absence of Microsoft Windows, I suspect the "Linux is hard to use" syndrome wouldn't last very long. It isn't all that hard to use now, anyway -- remember that usage != administration.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Europe is doing what any turd-world dictator does regularly - demand large kickbacks in return for "protection" of the business racket they wish to run within that country.
I suggest you read Slashdot
That is the whole point. And no, American companies do not have to obey foreign laws if they do business there... they choose to. If they do not choose to, there are a couple of options: 1) pay the price, 2) use strongarm tactics, or 3) get out. I think that when it comes to stupid crap like this... numbers 2 and 3 or the better options. For all I care, we could just become a bunch of isolationists... and it would be fine by me. If I recall correctly, that is what gave America the advantage over Europe in the first place... having better resources. It would sure impact the oil industry (and we have plenty of oil in the U.S.... we are just waiting till it dries up everywhere else...).
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
I would love for MS to open its standards, but this cannot be the way to do this. If you don't like MS, use a different operating system, don't have your government bully around companies and force them to comply with unreasonable demands. Whats next, NATO demanding Google remove their ads from gmail or the UN demanding Nintendo stop selling games that involve graphic violence?
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
The EU wants MS to open up their protocols and fileformats to allow fair competition. Aren't open standards what everyone here wants in the end? This 2.4M/day fine is just because MS isn't listening, the EU has fined MS before. This is the EU's way of saying: open up your protocols, your fileformats and your system or we'll force you to. Fines and legislation are the only way the EU can slowly force MS into accepting this fact.
I can't wait for the day that MS publishes actual complete documentation on implementing NTFS or communicating with an Exchange server. That is the day that we, the people, say that we won't stand for closed standards anymore.
This sig is intentionally left blank
And we should all trust you for finiancial advice ...
I really knew it all along, but it is not nice to rub it under people noses. So thanks again for making me feel smart, I'v been using linux exclusively since 1999.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
After all, it only cost them hundreds of millions to develop these things, but to ensure the interoperability of all drugs, we need to know how to do this. Don't worry, no one will copy.
The EU GPD is par with the american one and decent internet connections are becoming even more common than in the USA. Are you fucking kidding me?
MS would just as well buy Europe instead of paying fines.
No, it IS stupid, because those laws aren't in any way reasonable. They'd be reasonable if indeed the vast majority of EU voters were in favor of heavily regulating Microsoft -- of course it's obvious that all of this regulation is totally on a whim, just because MS is big.
IF the voters want this regulation, why the hell don't they simply refrain from BUYING MS's software? Yes, that's BUYING, as in paying money in a voluntary exchange between two trade parties. It's about *choice*.
I know what I'm talking about. I live in Europe, and I have a Mac. I bought it on my own free will, because I'm not content with Windows, nor with Linux (yes, mod me down for that).
To me it seems that Europeans don't want to buy MS stuff, nor do they want to refrain from buying it. What they really want, or what in any case the EU wants, is to FORCE MS to produce the kind of software THEY want. Obviously something is *very* wrong about that. Either they should produce their own stuff to their liking, or they should buy MS stuff and shut up. Forcing other people into doing what YOU want by putting a gun to their head (or asking for a few million bucks) just isn't civilized, it's Mafia methods.
why the EU has this kind of power over Microsoft? I thought that Microsoft is a U.S. based company that must obey U.S. laws.
Of course you have to obey the laws of the country you do business in. Let's say a hypothetical company in Fuckmenistan is allowed to kidnap and murder their competitors at will, according to Fuckmenistan's laws. Now are you saying that they should be able to do this in the U.S. too, because they are a "Fuckmenistan based company"?
A downside where it's even easier to create viruses and worms that cripple Windows, given an intimate knowledge of it's propritary inner workings.
Well, intimate knowledge of inner workings of Linux is available freely, but not many viruses and worms seem to be roaming around. Maybe more openness could be a good thing, if MS is willing to improve their products based on criticism? Also, this is probably not about the inner working of the OS, but communication protocols.
so microsoft is a monopoly eh then the simple thing for them to do is pay the 2.4 mil a day and just up the price on their products to work out at 3 mil a day extra profit a day simple if you ask me...
Microsoft, no matter how many people hate them, should not be penalised for being a sucessful business. There are plenty of alternatives to their product.
I mean, whats next?
Lets fine apple for making people with ipods (a monopoly) download itunes, which now comes with quicktime.
Lets fine sony (or X,Y,Z) for not playing songs downloaded by itunes.
Lets fine apple for not allowing other mp3 player play songs downloaded by itunes.
Lets fine KFC for not telling us the secret ingredient in the batter for the fried chicken, as some little take-away next door is suffering.
As I've said before here, Microsoft owes at least part of its tremendous success to the fact that IBM was under the Federal Anti-Trust microscope at the time that the MS-DOS contract was signed with IBM.
If MS-DOS wasn't bundled on so many IBM PCs, where do you think Microsoft would be today?
If IBM was free to operate as it wished, do you really they they'd permit another company to write such a simplistic OS for its desktop systems? I'm sure that it could have produced a similar piece of software in a few months at most.
What goes around comes around. Microsoft knowingly hedged its bets by behaving in a manner known to be in violation of existing anti-trust law, and there is usually a price to pay for going out of bounds during a game.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Europe is much more heavily dependent on windows than the US
Do you have any figures to back that up?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
No it is just that some of the Americans on here have started to thing of this as an EU vs. US. Which is frankly dumb but is the only way of explaining their new microsoft rules attitude.
P.S. I am an American but can still see that MS is still acting like idiots.
Would you like to:
-Lod
No one is asking Microsoft to release source code, just to document protocols such as their modified Kerberos used by Active Directory so other systems can interoperate. (In any case, the computer industry in the beginning was much more open - it's only later on that closed source and closed protocols started to appear).
Microsoft isn't a normal company; it holds a monopoly, therefore, they are subject to the rules of a monopoly. What you're saying is essentially an analogue to saying "Humans have always been killing other humans, I can't believe the EU would be so facist to compel people to stop killing others by having punishment for murder!".
If the hypothetical situation of Microsoft stopping sales of Windows and Office happened, the impact wouldn't be quite as great as you expect. Firstly, existing copies of Windows and Office would continue to work just fine. Secondly, imagine the glee of companies such as IBM and Sun who now have a market of 450 million people which now lacks the Microsoft 800-lb gorilla - so Microsoft would never even contemplate doing that. Apple would not join Microsoft in such a deal either, because they'd be throwing an enormous opportunity to take a huge chunk of that market for themselves.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
From http://www.eurunion.org/news/press/2004/20040045.
Politicians screwing with technology is not unique to Europe. Here in the US dottering old men that after hearing a term like BIOS would think its some for of S&M. They are are incharge of creating laws that to almost any technicly minded person sees as ridiculous.
Both OS/2 2.x and PC/GEOS (Geoworks Ensemble) used the right mouse button heavily (for context menus and for file dragging) well before Microsoft thought about using it for anything other than ESC.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
How can the EU "demand" that the code be opened up? The windows code is essentially MS' bread-butter. If they released the code, *anyone* (ok, not EVERYone, but you get the idea) can start writing Joe Windows or Larry Windows.
I just wonder that EU went too far with this 'demand'. I can see Bill and Steve sitting in their office laughing - "They want our code? Sure! Would you like fries with that?"
Could MS actually pull Windows from all EU countries? Then they wouldn't be subject to the fine, right? That would be fun! CatFight!!
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants.
Similar to language specific adaptations that have to be made to the tests, the norms itself are different over here. Since we have no village idiots playing rolemodel, the testers did not feel the urge to lower the the standards so that their headmonkey would not fall too far of the scale (on the left side). You have to specify which standard you are referring to, so you'd get either 100 EUR-IQ or 130 USD-IQ. :-)
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Europe is much more heavily dependent on windows than the US
Many people are heavily dependent on Windows.
It's not because Windows is so superior, it's due to the lock-in situation proprietary file formats, protocols and APIs have brought about.
That's why the EU wants to put a stop to it.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
First the idea that any manufacturer should be forced to open up their proprietary product design and second this dopey issue of bundling.
This idiotic idea that splits hairs over whats to be included in an OS is just absurd. So who gives a rats ass if MS chooses to include a Media Player or Internet Browser? Why is that different than a car manufacturer including windshiled wipers or a car stereo? Its not!
Its just the idiotic argument that it violates some sort of ethic or even law although no law exists restricting product bundling in this way, at least until anti-captialist/leftist, translation anti-american market forces get it legislated.
When it comes to Microsoft and the global market, meaning EU and Asia, they are all just piling on and taking their cues from these same "interests". Open Source in many ways is just a front for other "interests" that can't beat the giant so they choose to litigate him literally to death and all under the guise of public interest?
Then when the giant is dead, they will break off and form their own capitalist enterprises and market the same wares under some phoney ass altruistic banner.
I see some altruism in going against a giant that is tough to compete and dominates a market but if I use other examples like, I need a manufacturer A's component to fix Manufacturer A's product, there is no crime, bottom line.
So why is it a crime when you need a MS solution to support your product of the same?
Its only a crime when its Microsoft, everyones favorite token Capitalist Effigy to be burned in protest in the streets.
Apple stands in direct contrast, making a family of products that makes Proprietary the new religion but I dont see or hear and protestation on that one.
Thats what give you away, your blatant hypocrisy!
If they threatened this, it would demonstrate to the world that Microsoft thinks it is above the law. (It would probably also gain them another prosecution in the European courts too). They would never threaten to leave the European market because this would cause them to lose control of the PC desktop worldwide - a market of 400 million switching to Apple and Linux would have huge repercussions outside of Europe. If they did this - other nations would argue that Microsoft could do this to them too, so governments would make sure their national infrastructure would not depend on Microsoft. It would be suicide for Microsoft to even contemplate threatening this.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
and the problem for the /. crowd is where?
shanegrant.com
Turkey is not in the EU.
The EU just wants to stick it to ANY USA company
. html ) If another operating system cannot read and write to a Windows Server like the ruling says then the EU administrators are not doing their job. We have *nix, and windows servers here that all clients (windows, apple, Linux (5 flavors), and sun workstations all read and write to daily without any problem. MS doesn't make the hardware (besides keyboards and mice) so what is next fining Segate for hard drives, Plextor for CD/DVD drives?
.doc, .rtf., .txt, .html, what ever word perfect is I forget)
In many markets European companies are loosing or lost to foreign companies. Take the wine industry, European (France for the most part) was the world leader. When foreign (US and Australia) got better what happened? Laws were imposed saying that unless the wine was made in that region, you could not use that name. So the type of grape used was what is the type of wine instead of the region it came from. France stuck it to themselves with all their screwed up laws regulating the wine industry.
Now the EU sees MS as being too big for any EU computer company to compete. Make a better operating system and let the public (people everywhere) decide if they want to use it.
The basis of this is interoperability (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/I/interoperability
If the EU says I want to use ABC word processor to read and write to that MS word file that is a different story. But that is NOT what the ruling says. The ruling says Windows Servers NOT the office product. The EU wants all of the windows source code to write open source based ways of doing the same thing. Hell they'll just probably just recompile it in GCC then be done with it.
Having alternative to Windows.. wait there are alternative to Windows products, use them if you want to. Get people to save with alternative formats in office (they are in there, use something other then
That or the anti MS people are running the show and want the source code to hack it apart faster then they do now.
GO VIRUS writers GO!! Get your hands on windows source code!!
Are you aware that you're suggesting that European businesses operating in the US should be able to break the law and go unpunished?
Didn't Microsoft do just that just a few years ago?
Seriously.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
If they don't and they simply treat this penalty payment as an additional tax, the EU, will start doing more painful things.
Would Microsoft like:
1) Their assets (IP rights, buildings, stock they own, etc.) being put on sale, or (worse) frozen? (you might want to add bank accounts to the list if this happens).
2) Crimminal prossecution for upper management?
3) Trade in Microsoft shares being frozen?
The shareholders won't like any of these.
Trust me, if Microsoft doesn't change its behavior after getting this pennalty payment, they're in for a world of hurt... and the damage from that may very well be irreversible.
Yes I read the article, no I am not fully informed on the situation. However from the article I read that MS has some software in the EU. There are some regulations in place, I don't know when they were put there. MS has been around longer than most Software laws.
But as has been posted, why are they asking for MS to open up? Why does it stop there? What about car engines, Fax Machines, Medical equipment, Calculators, etc. From reading the article something just seems out of place here. I dont think it is a ploy to make money, but if this were to happen in the US I would say it was a political move for power. As there is no way the EU can enforce this and they know it.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
"If you don't like MS, use a different operating system, don't have your government bully around companies and force them to comply with unreasonable demands." agreed. don't hide behind the EU.
shanegrant.com
Each day they are fined they should stop support operations in EU countries. Just send all those people home for the day and stop answering the phones.
They want to play who blinks first? OK let's do that.
So should Apple be forced to open their Fairplay DRM? Should Google be forced to open their search algorithms so competitors and/or websites better "integrate" their search results with Google? The thought that everything should be open standards is foolish. Some level of ownership and proprietary knowledge is required as incentives for innovation. Simply b/c you or the EU "believes" that some aspect of technology should be open defeats the very basis of an incentive-based economy.
Fined 80 Microsofts you say? Thats a lot of money...
I don't think Microsoft are completely without choice here! They could just pull out of the European market; so they're not strictly speaking being forced, but are simply being given rules underwhich they must compley in order to trade in Europe.
Bullying you say? Well, I take your point, and I'm not thrilled at over regulation, but on the otherhand is it fair to say that MS are a monopoly and they use closed, proprietry protocols to maintain their monopoly. So in practise, the idea of allowing "natural" competition between MS and (say) Linux distros is never going to work because MS's competition will always have a way larger mountain to climb.... and that is of course, by design; MS put the mountain there in the first place!
Parent post has nothing to do with the story.
Well there is no point just giving the money to the EU so they can have new offices, extra caviar or whatever. What would be better would be for the EU to then donate the money or a portion of it to F/OSS companies (like Ubuntu) or Mandrake or whatever. Also that would hurt MS even more because things like Linux distros would get even better because they could hire more developers and buy more licenses for not open source programs. That would allow them to compete with MS on a much fairer ground, which would make MS much more likely to open it up as they would be basically paying for thier rivals and competitors to expand and become better.
Michael-m.co.uk - Home of Michael Mulqueen
That is almost exactly what I was thinking. If Microsoft pulls out of the EU it will be a matter of replacing jobs and making facilities somewhere else, I highly doubt they would lose the market. The EU would only be able to try to embargo or ban their product, which would be next to impossible I would think.
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
In your opinion.
Sarbannes-Oxley conflicts significantly with European data protection legislation, leading to significant extra work in gaining permission to transfer information to an insecure location (i.e. the USA) yet European companies have to comply to trade in the USA. And vice versa.
The following was posted by a student of an American university who was endeavoring to deride the educational standards of "socialist" nations (granted, it is the work of a student at the University of South Carolina, but judging at their president's own MENSA-level standards, USC qualifies as " a institute a higher learnin' ") :
Good think this is the EU and EVERYONE has IQ over 130. No retards in the socialist utopia of EU, since education is perfect there.
Or was that Canada, I get so confused.
Even when applying mere grade-school grammar level standards, one can easily spot 6 errors in a mere 3 sentence-like constructs (as taught at first grade level, a sentence starts with a "big letter" and ends with a "dot", but as taught later, there are additional requirements that have been missed). Note that the use of capital letters for emphasis, while child-like, is not grammatically incorrect.
Yes, Mr. American-educated genius, your "survival of the richest and meanest" based educational system is obviously vastly superior to ours. By the way, my native tongue is not English, but even to me it is apparent that your educational systems has failed you. Then again, in fairness to you, your native tongue is also not English - it is American.
By the way, it comes as no surprise that you cannot tell Canada from Europe since you are American-educated.
I mean, subscribe to MSDN or log into Microsoft's Knowledge base. It's all there. Maybe not spelled out phonetically as the technology challenged EU seems to imply is necessary when trying to understand technology.
If I was MS, I would tell them to go screw themselves. Does Apple provide full disclosure of how to interoperate with their servers? I have yet to find a decent Windows tool that allows me to access Apple's HFS+ file system as easly as Apple offers NTFS access. Also, through Apple I can more easily connect to a Windows machine then I can from Windows to an Apple computer. Seems to me that at least Apple has figured out how to interface with Window's networks properly.
What is left is all the Linux and Unix gurus that probably are more intimately familiar with Windows networking then even Windows software developers. They are, after all, mimicking everying Microsoft does in an effort to make the Linux platform user friendly.
Lastly, consdering that 90%+ of the machines out there are running Windows, why should MS bend over backwards so the other 10% can more easily communicate with them.
Someone should sue the EU for being just plain idiots when it comes to their constant bias against MS. I guess MS didn't given them a big enough discount on bulk licenses for Windows, so now the EU is all bent out of shape about Windows.
What I think MS should do, simply, is pull Windows off the shelves in Europe. Lets see how quickly Europeans scream to the EU to drop their constant barage of lawsuits against MS and let them be able to choose which OS they prefer to run once again without government interference.
Finally, MS should charge EU with slander as the EU isn't targetting other platforms for the EXACT SAME issues MS is being charged with. Apple comes pre-installed with Safari, media and contact management. Linux comes installed with countless gnu sharware, whether you want them or not. Windows offers a fairly decent media player and suddenly they are the only evil company out there? Get real. If EU doesn't start applying the same restraints on Apple and Linux distros, then its fair game for MS to counter-sue for bias and prejudice.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
RTFA. In fact, just RTFA summary on this page. They do not want M$ to open the source to windows, just provide open documentation so that other companies can make compatible software. This has always been one of the more insidious things things that M$ does. They keep the Windows API closed so as to keep competing software always a couple of steps behind what M$ puts out.
Then, when their software becomes dominant, it can stay dominant by virtue of their closed file formats in which everyone's files are saved, making it even more difficult for competing software to keep pace. But that's really not what this article is about. Sorry for getting OT.
my pet machine
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do? reference=IP/04/382&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN &guiLanguage=en
It's remarkable that so many of you don't seem to acknowledge, let alone accept the fact that in Europe, European law applies. Microsoft may be a US corporation, but as long as US marines aren't occupying our cities, we'll make our own laws here, thank you very much.
That being said, I should add that the EU we have now is a bureaucratic, undemocratic Moloch, and I voted against the proposed EU constitution last June (here's why). But the idea in itself of Europe imposing European laws on anyone (and any corporation) doing anything at all in Europe seems sound and fair to me.
And maybe, who knows, Microsoft having failed to bribe the EU authorities justifies some optimism regarding the democratic potential of the Union. I seem to remember that in the US, nailing Microsoft for unsavoury business practices turned out to be rather difficult.
The tiny little bit of difference is that Sarbannes-Oxley affects all companies, but this particular case of EU law only affects one single company, albeit a big one. Sorry if I find it unfair to use different measures for different companies, only because this one is bigger and doesn't write their software in the way that the Eurocrats would like.
If a particular *paying* customer would ask for a certain feature, maybe MS would even consider it, who knows? There's the way of peace, and then there's simple blackmail.
I can't believe the EU would be so fascist as to compel Microsoft to release this information...
Your definition of facism differs considerably from the one everyone else uses, you know?
and with a fine post-dated to Dec 15!!
That's usual practice. You are nice in giving the other guy a chance, but at the same time you tell him that the additional time is not to be understood as time he can just continue sleeping.
Microsoft should suspend all sales of Windows and Office until this is resolved.
Please!. Oh yes, please! Do you have any contacts within M$ you can influence so they'd do that? That would be a blast to watch. The EU antitrust commission is not the guys you want to snub at.
Hell they might be able to talk Apple into joining the boycott...
You are insane. Apple would jump at that opportunity, redirect its entire production to Europe and have a 90% market share within the year.
They'd be crazy to "join the boycott". Totally, utterly, unbelievably crazy.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The solution is to pack up, and discontinue selling software in the E.U. Simply put, if the E.U. really thinks Microsoft's solutions are harmful to business practices, they should welcome microsoft's removal from the market. Microsoft shouldn't allow its business practices like opening up code to be determined by third parties.
Of course, the E.U. really doesn't want them to. Instead they want to collect fines or exert power over how the business runs. The same thing that the U.S. government wanted. The U.S. government got its money. Only a matter of time before the E.U. does.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
Finally someone that is ready to make things less monopolistic and take a stand against giant. A price per day is a bit low, I would say 10 000 000 $ would do the trick, 70% of which would go to charity.
Sure, sounds like a hefty fine. But IIRC the US also fined MSFT 1M a day during it's noncompliance period, and I don't believe they paid a penny of it. The outstanding bill will just become another negotiating point--likely along the lines of MSFT agreeing to concede to the other demands if the EU forgoes the fine.
So I wouldn't spend that money until it arrives.
--
$tar -xvf
I work for a company that sells hardware and software, and the demand for more Linux support has gone up dramatically from overseas - and we're responding with success.
I personally think that their Linux requests are a bit out of spite (they have MS contracts, the project managers involved are just sick of Microsoft) -- but whichever way you cut it, Microsoft should probably begin playing nice because that's where they're going to lose customers. And Korea.
Berto
I know my math sucks but... 2,400,000 x 365 = 876,000,000 thats not "over a billion" Even if you add the "it already starts out over 100 million." its 976,000,000, still 24,000,000 short of a Billion.
The European economy hasn't exactly been the strongest in recent years, I doubt dropping Europe would really matter that much.
The EU and the US both have a GDP of roughly 11 USD trillion, of the 50 USD trillion world GDP.
The EU has more inhabitants than the US and they are generally rich enough to own a computer, so there are more licenses to be sold. Because the dollar has been sinking against the Euro over the last few years, exporting companies like Microsoft have actually been making most of their profit in Europe.
In addition the EU exports three times as much (3,025 USD billion, 43% of world exports) as the US (1,021 USD billion, 13.8% of world exports). Microsoft's licenses, and software licenses in general, are an increasingly important part of those US exports. That's why the US is so aggressive on international enforcement of copyright and patents: the US government is aware its economy is increasingly running on hot air.
Since the US has a huge trade deficit, the executive board of Microsoft will not only get fired by the shareholders if they pull out of Europe but they will probably also be tortured to death by their own government.
If you don't like MS, use a different operating system, don't have your government bully around companies and force them to comply with unreasonable demands.
That's democracy. A socially responsible company subjects itself to the rules of the jurisdictions it trades in. If you think a government is unreasonable, then stay out of that country.
Whats next, NATO demanding Google remove their ads from gmail or the UN demanding Nintendo stop selling games that involve graphic violence?
I doubt it. NATO and the UN do not have the power to ban companies from a 11 trillion USD market. The EU and US do.
I can't help but wonder if Open Source software is a big reason for this. I can see this kind of demand increasing in the future because Windows is constantly compared with Linx and Open Source software where the file formats and protocols are all open. If OSS wasn't around then it'd be much harder to make a case for opening things up simply because there wouldn't be anything to compare with. It'd be like the bad old days where everything was closed and everyone would think that's the way it ought to be. If so then this is a victory for Linux simply because of the change in what the way things ought to be.
Perhaps the original mathematician was thinking about the possible interest that could be made on sums such as that. I think that the interest might put it over 1 billion. Never mind negative press.
A fine for a committing a criminal offence is not a form of blackmail. It is a method used by most civilised countries, as well as the United States. Microsoft was convicted of breaking fair trade laws, it had refused to follow the court's verdict and it is now being fined for not doing so. They're simply breaking the law and they're being punished for it. In Europe, anyone has to obey law, even large corporations.
In my opinion, that is one of the single biggest reasons why Open Source software has not been able to capture the market. Even though the software *may* be superior (it still is up for debate), if I have to re-learn where everything is *every* single time I go somewhere else, then usually it isn't worth my time (which is more important than money), to utilize the few reasons why it *may* be superior, and so I will stick with Windows for now. For example, the most frustrating thing I have ever experienced was with the icons in Open Office. I started out with OOo 1.0, and I had to re-learn what all the icons were (because they are different from MS Office). Then I decided to upgrade to OOo 1.1 and then they changed the icons to something slightly different, and I had to re-learn everything. And then I upgraded to OOo 2.0 and they changed the icons again! and I had to re-learn everything. Consistency is key.
"Never underestimate the power of the Slashdot!"
I think EU plays dangerous game, what if MS decides to make a show out of it and closes, effective immediately, all MS products sale and support in EU? It will cost billions to EU economy to switch to alternatives, educate customers and fix alternatives to the point of being usable by average user. Complying with EU's decision will have a lot more effect on MS than just EU market, the will get more direct competition everywhere and that not what they would want.
I think that it is very important with open standards and that I hope Microsoft will open up some specification and use open standards. I hate closed down things.
But on the other hand, I think the EU dont give a fuck about open standards, they just want a reason to milk some money from Microsoft.
$2.4m/a day fines
How many chairs a day does it make in Redmond?
Who modded this as troll?
Come on... step up. You know who you are.
Ok your here. Now let me explain something to you.
SLASHDOT USERS ARE SARCASTIC. READ IT BEFORE YOU MOD IT.
Understand?
Yeah, that is the American pizza view of the world - the world extends to a few kilometers beyond the US borders and anthing further than that, falls off the edge and isn't worth thinking about. The reality is that the EU is a larger market than the US. However, the EU is less dependent on Windoze than the US, so if MS would pull out, it won't hurt much.
Oh well, what the hell...
Having worked on old computer systems I wonder whether MS really CAN document their systems. It wouldn't surprise me if much of code just worked, and the people that originally wrote it aren't with the company any more, or don't want to go back to documenting it. Given that it is much harder to reverse engineer functionality than write in the first place, and Windows is the product of 1000s of programmers over 20 years, Windows may simply be undocumentable.
OK - so not all of the system needs to be documented. But exactly which bits of the system effect interoperability? That could require detailed analysis. Network protocols may be much harder to document than GUI because so fwe people know exactly how things work. NO place I have worked has adequate documented there systems. To misquote, it might not be a conspiracy, it might be "incompetancy" (kind of). MS might be acting reasonably and still supply what many would regard as inadequate docs.
That's not to say supplying docs would fill MS with joy. I'm sure they would prefer not to. But it is very difficult to judge the situation from the outside.
Why does Microsoft have to comply with this ruling?
[%] Cingular Ringtones
...Linux crap that's unusable for anyone with an IQ under 130...
I failed a semester in school and released a custom bsd distro at the same time.
Coincidence... I think not.
MS has to pay because Europeans are computer newbs? That's just plain ludacris. If you think Windows is 'hard' to work with, don't buy it.
Many have already mentioned it, but what would really happen if Microsoft decided to just give up and pull out of the EU?
i.e.
- Stop shipping Windows operating systems to anyone in the EU.
- Pull all Microsoft products from store shelves. Windows, MSOffice, etc., etc., etc.
- Invalidate all EU software licenses.
- Cut off support for all EU customers.
- Close any MS Offices located in the EU, laying off all the workers.
- Stage the worlds largest media campaign blasting the EU publicly and stating any nations that pull out of the EU will be instantly re-instated and trade will begin anew.
This would cost Microsoft hundreds of millions and would effect their stock price, but they would recover and would still be making good money. The subsequent public backlash against the EU would be enormous and would hurt the EU economy much more then it will hurt Microsoft. Suddenly all businesses in the EU will be stuck not able to get updates or even patches and zero support. It is not realistic for the EU businesses to migrate to Apple or even Linux. Seeing that Office for the Mac would also be pulled, the only choice being OpenOffice which is not a great choice yet.
There is no law that states Microsoft has to bend over and take it in the EU. There is no law that states they must sell product to EU nations.
Personally, I hate Microsoft, but I hate the EU even more! Were any other company treated the way Microsoft has been treated by the EU; they would have left a long long time ago. As much as I hate Microsoft I hate liberalism, socialism, multi-culturism, and large government even more. I would love to see MS smackdown the EU, it would be an enormous event. What good is Monopoly power if you are not willing to use the power?
Isn't that precious... (apologies to SNL)
Obligatory Simpsons ref: Mr. Burns is hauled into court for dumping nuclear waste in the city park. He's fined $3 million. He whips out his checkbook and says, "I'll take that statue of justice too!"
If i was microsoft i would say "ok...well see you later Europe."
Microsoft cannot do this. Microsoft's entire business is structured around leveraging their monopolies on the desktop and office applications. If they abandoned The EU, they would be creating a market for a competitor. Whomever took that market would have enough market share that Microsoft would have to interoperate with them. That would be disasterous for them.
Even worse, it leaves room for that market to be carved up between several different applications that work together using a standard interface (like open document format for office, for example).
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
IF they were made by the same company, as you propose, nothing would be wrong, as there is nothing wrong in this case, here (AFAIK in the US. IANAL). But the truth is Apache and Firefox are made by two different companies. Two different companies teaming up and not allowing a third vendor in is wrong, at least here in the US. If Firefox was allowed to "buy in" to the protocols of Apache to allow flawless integration, Microsoft must be allowed to do so too, at the same going rate.
Difference in this case is Microsoft owns all products in question, they can have proprietary protocols between their own software. If they make protocols available to outside companies, they have to make the entry barrier the same for everyone.
-everphilski-
MS should fight this most vigourously... for all of us.
would europe not benfit greatly from microsoft being removed from its market? just think about it, while it will be inconvenient at the start many companys (european) will have a chance to take linux or some bsd and make it into a usable product and then become the market leader. with a new os on the market people are going to need training and probably this will be a good chance to upgrade that old hardware and write a whole host of new software applications. all of which can be done by european companies and providing a boost to their economy. markets do not loose value they stagnate. money crculates and when it is circulating across oceans then europeans are hurt but when it circulates in the country or region jobs will increase as well as the quality of life. so europe do your self a favor and kick ms make something home grown and provide yourself with jobs. the great recession was not ended by people suddenly finding more money in their books but because people were afraid to spend it while not knowing if they would be able to earn it back, only after we enter world war two when the government hired millions of americans and started pumping money into and out of the economy did things improve. with any luck europe will become the new tech super house of the world while as an american i hope that does not happen for fear of loosing my job it would be good for you guys.
Seriously. What if MS isn't just stonewalling because they don't want to have to play on a level field? What if they actually cannot comply?
I have seen some hints that MS doesn't have documentation of some of this stuff. They aren't choosing to just keep it for themselves; they don't have it at all.
My guess is that, for far too long, MS just kept cranking out features, because that's what sold. They "didn't have time" to document it, even internally. The code was the documentation.
And now, it bites them. "Give me features, now, at any price" turns out to have a high price indeed.
"A socially responsible company subjects itself to the rules of the jurisdictions it trades in. If you think a government is unreasonable, then stay out of that country."
Dude, this is America/. If a sufficiently important American company thinks a government is unreasonable, that government either changes its mind or ceases to be. There is only one soverign nation anymore, and the USA is it.
Think I'm kidding? Imagine if the EU tried to impose some huge fine and in lieu of payment seized title to the source code and binaries for all MS products sold in Europe then released that code as public domain. That could be legal, but the US would not allow it to happen and any means needed would be used, including military action, made more convenient by the fact that we have bases througout Europe and the European forces are weak, underfunded, inexperienced and mostly conscripted.
When it comes down to it, the US can and will shoot you and take your stuff if you forget who runs the world.
I think Microsoft should just pull out of the EU market. My guess in that in 3-6 years, the EU will be begging Microsoft to sell their products again.
"Microsoft *is* a convicted monopolist, that is why they are being fined. "
Oh, NOW you all pay attention to American law. MS was convicted IN THE US.
Do not get me wrong, I do not like MS. I hate their products (most of them) and avoid them as much as I can.
But this is a joke. They have a product, that can be bad, faulty, unsecure or whatever, but it is still their product and they do whatever they want with it.
Does not work with whatever else? Well it is a different issue. Do not use it. Or use the "other product". Explorer sucks? Do not use it.
I think it is ridiculous to force a company to make their product interoperable. If they think it is good for them, then let them do it. If their mail server or collaboration server does not work with anything, they will loose customers (and force others buying it so they can e.g. work together with a company.
I do not think they need a ruling. I think they have to realize that if they do not fix their protocols and document formats (etc etc...) they will loose market share on the long term.
Not that they lost a bunch of money on me, but I am sure they are loosing money everyday, when someone advises customers against an exchange server or other products based on terrible interoperability experience.
just my 2 cents. Europe is getting aggressive, and I am sure some people are enjoying any punishment on MS here, I think this time this should not be enforced like this. People should instead stop buying the crap, terminate support contracts until protocolls are open and usable X-platform.
Last time I checked, they had $40 billion (yes, billion with a "B") in liquid assets just sitting in the bank. When you scale Microsoft's amazingly massive wealth down to that of the average American working stiff, that $2.4 million is equivalent to about $2/day in fines. The EU is fining Microsoft less than the price of a small cup of plain coffee from Starbuck's every day. Don't hold your breath waiting for them to change their business practices over this...
0 1 - just my two bits
If they presented Microsoft with a fine that followed the Indian fable of rice and the chessboard that would certainly get their attention!
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Building park benches? or what?
And so it was that half the EU was wiped off the map with the hidden thermite that comes standard as part of Windows TCP/IP - Terrorist Controlled Protection for Intellectual Property.
Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game
The EU can seize MS property to satisfy judgements or fines, including any and all intellectual property, including source and binary code under license to companies or institutions in Europe. Governments can do anything they like to corporations and are under no compulsion to treat them as equals in any way. In fact, they can wipe out all stock and notes issued by a chartered company, simply by declaring the company non-existent and/ or seizing all the company's assets. That might or might not be legal, but the thing is, sovereign governments don't have to obey any law.
The EU hasn't even begun to get nasty on the govenmental scale. If they wanted to, they could designate MS a terrorist organisation and seize all its money, and lock up all its people in Europe. The EU won't go that far, because they have less disruptive ways of getting obedience from MS, but those softer ways work because it is tacitly understood how far a government can go.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
The EU is threatening a manuever that will hurt an existing corporation in hopes of helping other corporations in the long run. This is completely unnecesary. If government must gets its filthy little hands involved, why not support other initiatives to fill the hole in the market instead of attempting to balance it out? Help the little guy help themselves, don't punish the big guy for getting big.
I my opinion, there seems to be a huge market for companies to provide products that manage Interoperability between various platforms. Instead of trying to make Microsoft provide these services, changes that would be what Microsoft wants not what the customer wants, why not support some entrepruerial spirit to provide the desired products and services? Or are the rumors I hear about Europe true that the European worker is a lazy cog in the wheel of the man with no desire or incentive take the risk of running starting ones own business true? I don't know myself, but that is the word on the street in the US and Asia.
Ehh...this is the life we chose.
This is complete, utter B.S. This EU antitrust ruling is for documentation of *server* protocols. Microsoft is NOT the "800-pound" gorilla in the server market. Their share is around 50%, which does NOT constitute a monopoly. Once upon a time, Sun had an even greater market share and was the 800-pound gorilla, but they failed to ride the commoditization of the PC industry to cut costs until recently.
If the server market wanted to buy "open" alternatives (as vague as that term is), they would do so. There are plenty of well-established server providers out there, Linux companies included. (Server has always been the traditional realm of Unix.) But whenever companies pick Microsoft anyway, people here on Slashdot (and apparently in the EU too) cry "monopoly". After all, it's easier to litigate than compete.
Linux adoption is NOT slow because "The Man" (Microsoft) is illegally trying to keep it down. Linux does a fine job of slowing its own adoption by shooting itself in the foot all the time.
who is John Galt?
Oh, I suppose there's a price to be paid for having a monopoly.
On the other hand, i don't like the EU decision, although personally I am in no way affected by it. At least not at this time.
If the decision was taken by an US court I would say: yeah, they are right, but being the EU it doesn't seem right, it's like picking at the success of a foreign company that knew how to take an opportunity and got rich while their own companies were too much behind to do anything. Now they want the short way out of it.
From the submission: Back in March 2004 Microsoft was ordered to open up its Windows operating system by way of making documentation available that would assist work on interoperability with other systems ...
According to Another CNET article from late March of 2004,
Unless the deadline was extended, their time actually ran out around July.
America is a chick?
Most countries have anti-trust laws. They've been passed for a reason.
They'd be reasonable if indeed the vast majority of EU voters were in favor of heavily regulating Microsoft -- of course it's obvious that all of this regulation is totally on a whim, just because MS is big.
Most voters simply don't care. Otherwise they'd vote for a party that's for abolishing the anti-trust laws. And don't start about how undemocratic the EU is. The commission does its work with the support of the EP and the EC. If the voters in the member States decided that they no longer want monopolies curtailed we'd have a different commission.
IF the voters want this regulation, why the hell don't they simply refrain from BUYING MS's software? Yes, that's BUYING, as in paying money in a voluntary exchange between two trade parties. It's about *choice*.
You don't understand. It's not illegal (and MS is not fined for that) to be a monopoly. It's illegal to use a monopoly in one field to achieve an unfair advantage in another.
What they really want, or what in any case the EU wants, is to FORCE MS to produce the kind of software THEY want.
No, they want to stop MS from using their monopoly on the desktop to achieve a monopoly for server software.
Forcing other people into doing what YOU want by putting a gun to their head (or asking for a few million bucks) just isn't civilized, it's Mafia methods.
Unless you're a State or have some of the powers of a State and the things you want are codified law.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Agreed.
Doing business anywhere is a PRIVELEGE. Not a RIGHT!!!
I don't read Slashdot to hear people admitting their own faults, and getting along. Stop it! Get back to misunderastanding, and calling each other names!
Is this the same EU that's been pushing so hard for software patents? Isn't it the purpose of software patents to create/enforce monopolies? Wouldn't it make more sense to heavly restrict software patents, or simplt strip M$ of and patents pertaining to the protocols in question. There are already companies that have figured many MS protocols out, but they still have to pay M$ licensing. A judgement restricting or assigning MicroSoft's protocol specific patents to public domain would probablly do more to open or level the playing field. Especially if thos restrictions / assignments applied to patents files for the next 5 years. my $0.02 2.4 Mil/day seems steep so I'm assuming the kind of arrogance and lying that M$ applied to the US courts did not impress the EU judges at all.
Gone to my happy place.
The law applies to all companies, most of them choose not to break it. Microsoft broke the law, they agreed to open their APIs as part of their punishment, they have not done so, so they are being fined. There is no 'Anti-MS' law, if, say BP was fined under Sarbannes-Oxley would you claim that Sarbannes-Oxley only affected one company?
Two things:
We wouldn't have a different EU commission in any case, because the voters don't really have any power over the EU. The EU parliament's powers are a joke.
I agree that *using* a monopoly in unfair ways should be illegal, but I can't think of illegal ways right now. There are other OSes than Windows. There's lots of software for Windows, as well. Sure, MS delivers their browser and media player with the system, as do Apple and most Linux vendors. So what? They don't open their system too much? So what? There are tons of software for Windows, and if the APIs aren't enough, then switch to another system. If your software is so great that it needs more than Windows's power, then it should be a breeze to sell that to potential customers. And how expensive is it for a company that uses Windows for some tasks, to buy another computer with different software on it? There are MANY companies that use both Windows and Macs, or both Windows and Unix workstations, and for a reason.
Basically, if there's no coercion involved (i.e. gun to the head), it can't be too bad. Maybe you don't like it, but you can always choose differently, as can everyone else. It's not MS's fault that people banding together to create alternative software wasn't too successful yet (I wouldn't count Linux as too successful; especially in the technical sense I don't consider it too great).
It's my opinion tha they could do the *very best they possibly could* to release the specifications for their APIs, and while it would help, it still wouldn't give anyone much more ability to interoperate than they currently have, because the documentation will be wrong.
Microsoft has a huge incentive to get their developer's documentation correct, and yet MSDN is rife with errors and omissions.
The EU demand IS unjustified and idiotic. Why should anyone be forced to provide information about their system? For those who say, 'MS can just not do business in Europe'.. well... who is forcing anyone to use Windows? If you don't like Windows, don't use it.
What if instead, the EU said, "We don't like MS's policies, we will refuse to buy their software". That would make a lick of sense. How much does the EU spend per day on MS products? Can anyone find that info? No doubt they have a big fat volume discount.
Socialism never works.
[I'm not pro MS, but I don't have Karma to burn]
I'd like to see the market reaction to that announcement: "Our customer base is now halved."
There are three major markets which we can (for the sake of simplicity) assume are roughly equal in size. The US, the EU, and the Asian. This only affects the EU.
So the correct announcement would have to be:
"Our paying customer base is now halved."
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Mis-labeled cans of meat is people!
The EU is not running their business when they are dictating to us how to write code, and what is now not acceptable in the world. If so, let them write their own os, and get off our back.
Ad Astra Per Asper
If MS did something like that you'd see every nation in the world move *away* from MS software to avoid the same problem. We'd see a nearly immediate move to open standards, standards compliance, and open source.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Nah, what the EU wants is simply that non-MS desktop applications that run on windows have a level playing ground against MS desktop applications. Opening up the APIs is a first step to make that happen. The only strange thing is that the traditionally anti-trust and pro free market US doesn't seem to be interested in it anymore.
All MS has to do is stop selling Windows and support in Europe. :)
Then people and companies in the EU will struggle and beg MS to come back.
Why?
1. Apple - ha ha
2. Linux - stable, secure, but definitely not for your average user. Imagine explaining to someone who is computer illiterate how to install something from source by unzipping, untar-ing, and compiling (with dependancies). It won't happen. Well... unless they use Fedora and go yum-crazy.
3. More apps run on Windows than anything else (unfortunately).
The bottom line is that regardless of whether you like MS or not, this whole thing is pretty ridiculous.
MS *does* have European assets that could be seized
Try getting any corporations to invest in the EU-playground after that...
It's the same old socialist europe cry-baby game -- we want to be treated like adults (capitalism) but we cry when things don't go our way (socialism).
Sovereign governments do have to obey the law but they have the added advantage that they make the laws including those dealing with the validity of contracts. Hence they could nullify all EULA's from a company back to the year dot using shrink wrapping as a justification. A smarter move however may be to announce that for the sake of simplicity when dealing with EU government agencies, all business documents in the EU need to be stored in an ISO compliant open document format.
God I love the sound of flying furniture in the morning...
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
This brings to mind one of my favorite quotes:
"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money"
-Senator Everett Dirksen
Well yeah, the EU contains nearly twice as many people as the US, so their gross domestic product should be high. Per captia they end up being much smaller than in the US. And their economic growth (which is what I was talking about since you were not paying attention) has not been all that high in recent years and their unemployment rates are horrible. People are not going to go out and buy a new computer if they are unemployed and their nation's economic growth looks bleak. Believe me, I've seen it, my company's Europe numbers have been horrible recently compared to say the Americas or Asia. There is no way MS is going to potentially sacrifice their business in those markets just to make some politicians in Europe happy, especially since odds are at least 10-1 they are bluffing.
"That's democracy. A socially responsible company subjects itself to the rules of the jurisdictions it trades in. If you think a government is unreasonable, then stay out of that country."
No, thats absolutely not true. Just because a country is a democracy does not give them a right to pass any law they want to. Think Germany back in the '30s.
"NATO and the UN do not have the power to ban companies from a 11 trillion USD market."
Wanna bet?
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
The EU can't pick up and use a different OS, so they try to bully MS into doing something they don't want to?
I'm not exactly for anti-competitive business strategies, but how about the EU stop doing silly things like this, and just use a different OS? They exist.
I'd say the worst case is that Microsoft uses a backdoor to permanently crash every machine in Europe and kill the economy. Is that at all plausible?
"This isn't stupid. When you do business in some foreign country, then you have to respect that countries laws."
But if you're Linux or Apple you don't have to? Remember they both come with their own media players, browsers, even office packages (linux) preinstalled, but noone touches them.
I wonder if all successful operational systems are doomed to be attacked and dumbed down until they're killed off.
Heh, how long until we get a CIA "intervention" in China a la U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Co.?
going to denounce this fine?
The competitors are naturally disadvantaged because they don't have the inside knowledge into the protocols supported by Windows on the desktop. They have to waste time and/or money on reverse engineering.
But what's the problem about the field being not level?
Look at all those applications that exist for Windows. Are those having any actualy problems? Anything that normal apps would do, but can't?
The only thing I can imagine is that some people would like access to internal APIs that aren't really relevant to the normal application developer, and it's MS's right to not disclose them, in my moral sense, if not in the EU's legal sense.
Similarly you could ask Apple to open up everything that's closed right now, but I'm not sure that that's important. Sure, some things that deeply affect the system can't be changed without that information, but why is it necessary that third parties modify the very core of the system or the user interface? Aren't there enough areas for third parties to compete on the Windows platform? Why is there some necessity for them to compete in areas that can be considered private or internal to the Windows platform and to MS?
If the MS tried to pull a stunt like that, they would be destroyed within a decade. EU is the worlds largest economy, no significant company can ignore it. Period. For better or worse, the EU decides the rules of the global marketplace.
So your choice is really simple. Either you play by EUs rules or you remain a regional player.
This is bullshit. This is Europe trying to manipulate the market to give domestic countries the advantage. This is an activity every nation engages in, Europe is just particularly aggressive about it.
If Microsoft were a European company the EU would merrily encourage these same practices and ensure that it would continue to thrive indefinitely.
The consequence of a free market is that there's a risk of one company growing too dominant. I'm all for legislation where necessary. I don't think it's necessary with Microsoft.
Microsoft doesn't prevent anyone from installing a different operating system on their machine. You can have a single machine booting Linux and Windows, with no problem.
Within Windows you can install whatever the hell you want. I can use IM instead of MSN Messenger, Quicktime instead of Windows Media Player, or Firefox instead of Explorer. And the Windows applications aren't going to harass you over it. Try that with a Mac. I still have Mac OS preview and Apple's Quicktime trying to open files they dont even support. I still Macs own email program occassionally popping up. And I have to go into Apple's Safari to set another application as the default. Imagine if Apple were the dominant platform, we'd see far more strict control of our PCs than we do under Windows.
If you don't like Windows develop a damn realistic alternative. Everyone wants their own special version of Linux but no one knows how to organize the movement into a true replacement to Windows. One that doesnt require the average user to understand the intricacies of an operating system or to hunt for specific drivers for every damn device they've got.
Actually, there is a realistic alternative which may actually even be popular. Mac OS X. But no one has managed to convince Apple to produce a PC version.
So who's fault is this? It is Microsoft's fault for being successful? Microsoft may have done some despicable things, and their software is bloated and fraught with problems. However, what they do they do well; they've been able to effectively address the needs of many users.
Let's not be naive here, Microsoft hasn't done anything that most other companies, European, Asian or American haven't done, or wouldn't do if they were in the same situation.
Windows will be replaced by something else eventually. I just hope its because a better product has come along, not because governments have forced a crap alternative on us thanks to their idiotic anti-competitive legislation.
What's funny is that the over-zealous anti-Microsoft people are the very same people would would be anti-Linux if that had been the standard.
I say let msft keep their code closed. Who cares.
Coercive monopolies are in a privileged position to reap economic benefits by restricting output and raising prices, without fear of competition. However, Thomas Woods asserts that the industries most frequently accused of holding a coercive monopoly position in the late nineteenth century were neither restricting output nor raising prices.
The Results of "Predatory pricing": Commodity Prices from 1880-1890
Steel Down 58% Zinc Down 20% Sugar Down 22%During the 1880s output of monopolistic industries grew seven times faster than the overall economy, while prices in these industries were generally falling--even faster than the 7% rate of decline that occurred in the economy as a whole.
Free market economist Milton Friedman states that he initially agreed with the underlying principles of antitrust laws (breaking up monopolies and oligopolies and promoting more competition), but came to the conclusion that they do more harm than good and that therefore they should not exist.
Critics also argue that the empirical evidence shows that "predatory pricing" does not work in practice, and is better defeated by a truly free market than by anti-trust laws.
Thomas Sowell argues that even if a superior business drives out a competitor, it doesn't follow that competition has ended:
In short, the financial demise of a competitor is not the same as getting rid of competition. The courts have long paid lip service to the distinction that economists make between competition -- a set of economic conditions -- and existing competitors, though it is hard to see how much difference that has made in judicial decisions. Too often, it seems, if you have hurt competitors, then you have hurt competition, as far as the judges are concerned.[3]Alan Greenspan argues that the very existence of antitrust laws discourages businessmen from being productive for society, out of fear that their business actions will be determined illegal and dismantled by government. In his essay entitled Antitrust, he says: "No one will ever know what new products, processes, machines, and cost-saving mergers failed to come into existence, killed by the Sherman Act before they were born. No one can ever compute the price that all of us have paid for that Act which, by inducing less effective use of capital, has kept our standard of living lower than would otherwise have been possible." [4]
People are not going to go out and buy a new computer if they are unemployed and their nation's economic growth looks bleak.
It's still a big market if it doesn't grow very fast, and recent pc sales have actually been much better. Microsoft definitely doesn't want to leave.
No, thats absolutely not true. Just because a country is a democracy does not give them a right to pass any law they want to. Think Germany back in the '30s.
A socially responsible company would have left that country at some point. Microsoft should either follow EU law or leave. The US government may lean heavily on the EU to make it lessen its demands, but Microsoft is eventually going to comply, if only for symbolic reasons.
(In any case, the computer industry in the beginning was much more open - it's only later on that closed source and closed protocols started to appear)
Dude.. when did you start using computers? My Ti-99/4A only worked with Ti peripherals and my friend's C-64 was the same way. If MS doesn't want to interoperate that's their own decision to make. There is nothing stopping people who don't like it from getting a Mac.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Well sure, they don't want to leave, but they also obviously don't want to comply with this ruling either. If they have to choose between doing something which they believe will ruin their business model and calling the EU's bluff, they certainly can do the latter.
"A socially responsible company would have left that country at some point."
First, it wasn't just companies that were affected then, it was also the people living there. Second, many companies couldn't leave as the state assumed control over them. Third, are you seriously suggesting there was nothing wrong with the laws that were passed back then, that if those living there didn't like them they should have moved to where, Poland? France?
My point was, just because a nation is a democracy does not give them carte blanche to do whatever it wants as your post implied.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
First of all, vendors are free to ship their own network filesystem protocols for Windows. Nothing is stopping them. In fact, these vendors can even write their own file system redirectors to make this protocol work exactly like CIFS/SMB, integrating into the standard filesystem. Why won't they do this? Because it's hard work, and it would be easier for them to reverse-engineer the way Microsoft has already implemented it. Then they don't have to write the client side stuff themselves, because it's hard to do.
Second of all, Windows has used one variant or another of the SMB protocol ever since the Microsoft Lan Manager shipped in 1987. The LAN Manager client software was included as part of the Windows 3.1 back in 1992. At the time, Novell and Banyan had their own proprietary systems which were just as popular, and eventually as Windows gained popularity, Novell shipped its own proprietary client for Windows for years. Insinuating that these protocols are some kind of "monopoly tool" added by Microsoft to increase its Server share is ridiculous because they didn't have a desktop monopoly when they were added!
Bingo! I think you nailed it on the head. These companies want a free lunch. They want to use Microsoft's networking client for their own servers without writing their own. It all boils down to that. They *could* write their own client-side networking stack using their own server protocols of choice, but that's difficult to do. So, rather than doing this work, they litigate instead! The EU court system, full of people who don't like big business (particularly American big businesses), is happy to oblige them. Now they'll be able to use Microsoft's client as if it were their own.
Microsoft vandalized Manhattan by placing 16,000 static-cling posters throughout the island. If I remember correctly, they were faced with a $50 fine for it, paid it, and got lots of free advertising out of it. Drop in the bucket, huh?
MS wouldn't dare no pay the fine, the loss of a large market would make;
a) Their shareholders go mad
b) lose of huge, huge amounts of revenue
c) Make the US-Govt/Courts to take action if they pull off a stunt against another union like that
MS is not stupid, they will comply, they have no other choice. It might be the case that the EU has got it wrong..But frankly Microsoft is uncontrabbly a monopoly that dominates everything and its about time that some regains control of the OS market.
Are there undocumented APIs microsoft is being asked to document?
Undocumented file formats?
Undocumented network protocols?
Disk formats like NTFS?
If I ran Microsoft, I would null and void all EULAs in Europe, and not do business with them anymore. If you were using Windows at ALL, it would not allow you to use a european internet site, or even an ISP. Take the system that you created back if others won't use it. Why should Microsoft, an American company care about Europe anyways? What would Europe do if MS decided to do the above situation? That's right. Tails between the legs, and begging to use a "closed" operating system once again...legally.
And that's the trouble. Government shouldn't be forcing business to give away its IP.
Now if EU had said: We will not buy any product that has closed file formats & protocols ... and we encourage our citizens to do the same! ... well, then I would have been completely in agreement.
.. MS will bow down and the EU will make a deal.
qz
Nah, there's a much simpler solution. The EU could simply declare that MS copyrights would no longer be enforced. Maybe some people would still purchase MS products, but most would simply buy pirated versions, like they do in many Asian countries.
I don't think the EU could do that with current trade agreements. If that happened I think the US would start ignoring EU copyrights and such, and the **AA's would go apeshit.
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
What Microsoft should do is:
1) pull all MS OS software from the EU market to avoid fines
2) slap together a VERY limited Windows UI on-top of FreeBSD
3) sell the software at current full price and charge 5k for access to source of limited FreeBSD/Windows OS (retaining copyright of code preventing redistribution of blatant copies)
4) watch in amazement as the FreeBSD/Windows OS becomes more popular than existing MS OS's
I might even be interested in trying a FreeBSD/Windows OS.
Slightly offtopic, but ...because Sony has a monopoly on what, that they have abused how?
I would never suggest that have monopolies on corporate idiots, but somehow they certainly have managed to hire a lot of them lately, and they should be abused, daily. Also while Sony designs and builds fine hardware they also have the knack for picking standards that die. Anybody else watch what standard Sony is pitching and betting on the other prime contender? Maybe this DRM fisaco will wake up or clean up the boardroom. It is a shame to see some of the finest design and engeering people in the world have their work abused and rendered useless by clueless management.
Matthew
Can someone from Microsoft please post an anonymous yes/no/maybe about whether the documentation that the EU wants to be published actually exists in a canonical form that we (the community outside of the Microsoft world) expect them to publish?
:)
I mean how many programmers out there really like documenting what they're doing before hand? And if you do, does it stay up to date? Look at how many "bugs" there have been and issues that the likes of Samba have had to discover and work around.
Maybe Microsoft can't write the documentation that's expected - or at least not as quickly as desired ?
But please, I'm not trying to defend them, just trying to understand them
Investing in China under its current regime is immoral in so many ways it isn't even funny, with the possible exception of investments that promote China's peoples' ability to communicate independent of the Party censorship.
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
A statement directly from the microsoft web site (on a page which confounds direct linking):
Common Internet File System
The Common Internet File System (CIFS) is the standard way that computer users share files across corporate intranets and the Internet. An enhanced version of the Microsoft open, cross-platform Server Message Block (SMB) protocol, CIFS is a native file-sharing protocol in Windows 2000.
thus claiming that SMB and CIFS are the native Windows file sharing protocols, and are "open".
So surely server vendors would want to be using these protocols when supporting Windows, and make use of the client-side networking stack that the desktop users have already paid for.
But what is this missing documentation that the EU is now requesting, if Microsoft say it's already open and standard?
of course. and that is why ms will never have guts to pull from europe. :>
and the new powerhouse probably will be china, as both eu/usa are rotten to the bones (c) paprika korps
Rich
The EU has currently 450 Million inhabitants, and this number will increase to 500 Million in 2 years, when Bulgaria and Romania join (increasing the number of members to 27). If you haven't got the memo, the EU is currently the biggest econonmy on this nice planet. Oh, and Turkey is not part of the EU (yet).
Keep open minded - but not that open your brain falls out...
First, it wasn't just companies that were affected then, it was also the people living there. Second, many companies couldn't leave as the state assumed control over them. Third, are you seriously suggesting there was nothing wrong with the laws that were passed back then, that if those living there didn't like them they should have moved to where, Poland? France?
My point was, just because a nation is a democracy does not give them carte blanche to do whatever it wants as your post implied.
There is a fundamental difference between natural persons and non-natural persons created by law. Natural persons have the right, and the moral duty towards other members of their society and towards their posterity, to resist tyranny. The state - a non-natural person itself - only exists by the grace of the natural persons that recognize that state, and those natural persons share responsibility for what that state does.
Non-natural persons are legal fictions, and only exist by the grace of the state and its law. The agency metaphor is limited: the non-natural person cannot commit crimes, it cannot be imprisoned, its natural rights cannot be violated because it has none, etc. A responsible management will realize that an international company pretending to be directly 'resisting' a government is non sequitur: the company cannot instruct its employees in the EU to disobey the law and accept the responsibility itself. The only option for the company (besides lobbying, influencing public opinion, etc.) is to dissociate itself from that state to prevent damage to the company's reputation.
The natural persons working for that company have other responsibilities. Regarding your analogy to appropriation of company resources by the Nazis: it is the responsibility of natural persons to do whatever is possible to destroy, hide, or move company resources if they feel it is their moral duty to do so. With the benefit of hindsight I believe that it would have been better if people had been less loyal to the various non-natural persons they served, and had destroyed records, disabled trains, hidden their army rifle after the capitulation of their state instead of following orders to turn themselves in, etc. Most people would have been better people in WWII if they had not taken their employer, church, state etc. so seriously as they did in those days, and foreign war profiteers like IBM, GM, Ford, Du Pont, and Standard Oil should have gotten out.
In this case Microsoft is simply being fined for a novel kind of anticompetitive behaviour. This is unremarkable: many companies in the EU and US get fined every year for all kinds of anticompetitive stratagems. The EU appears to be more heavy-handed than the US in this area in recent years. European companies also get fined by the US for things (business with Cuba or Iran, for instance) most Europeans have no issue with.
Anyways, yes, if you revise your previous statement and say that these specific rulings are within the bounds of a democratic government (as opposed to saying a democracy can do whatever it wants, if you don't like it leave), you have something that is at least debatable. Of course since you have yet to make a case for this specific ruling, so you really still havn't gotten anywhere.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
...because that's where they're going to lose customers. And Korea.
In Korea only old people still use Windows.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
You should never let factual information get in the way of a good joke. Or one of my jokes, for that matter.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
I started with the Sinclair ZX-81 (about the same time) and then ZX Spectrum (and used the BBC Micro). On the ZX-81 and Spectrum, the peripheral interconnect bus was documented with the user guide you got with the computer. You could buy a book with a complete disassembly and annotation of the Spectrum ROM (these things were written in asm anyway, so there wasn't really any such thing as 'closed source').
In the world of larger computers, Unix was open source (even if it was proprietary). BSD (which has always been open source) had its development begin in the 1970s.
This is beside the point, in any case. Microsoft were successfully prosecuted for using their monopoly to drive competitors out of other markets. To break this monopoly, one of the remedies is that they must document their proprietary protocols. Microsoft isn't Texas Instruments (which was just one of many many 8-bit computer manufacturers and not a monopoly) - Microsoft have a monopoly, and therefore are subject to anti trust rules. Just like someone who commits a crime has conditions placed on them, Microsoft have broken anti trust regulations in Europe and are having conditions placed on them. If Microsoft didn't want to face the consequences, they shouldn't have used their desktop monopoly to cross subsidise their entries into other markets. Only Microsoft are to blame here for their illegal abuse of their monopoly - no one else. Or do you believe corporations should be exempt from the law?
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
They have no right to come down to someone's dry cleaning business and tell the owners they have to do the military's laundry for free, or else they will be fined millions of dollars.
Yes they can and they do. The only reason that they don't want dry cleaning businesses to do their laundry is because these kinds of burdens are very illiquid and they prefer to collect VAT on the dry cleaning businesses. Democratic governments habitually impose burdens on companies and they are entitled to do so in the public interest. Protecting the market from anticompetitive behaviour is a legitimate interest. This isn't really a problem as long as companies have to abide by the same general rules, and governments don't randomly put some burden on one dry cleaning business alone, harming its position in the market.
Governments are now usually more circumspect about taking property from companies than in the past, but that is just because more voters are shareholders nowadays. In the end it doesn't really make a difference whether you take the property from companies or from people.
The fact that it is a foreign company that can easily escape punishment by moving out of the EU (since it doesn't have factories and other assets that are hard to move) is interesting, but from an appropriation point of view it isn't really relevant in a globalized market. Most shareholders generally spread their money worldwide anyway, and should accept that investing in companies that behave badly carries more risk. Shareholders should also accept that the limited liability associated with publicly traded shares makes it hypocritical to complain about being stolen from by a government. You risk everything you invest in the company, and nothing more. That's the deal.
Anyways, yes, if you revise your previous statement and say that these specific rulings are within the bounds of a democratic government (as opposed to saying a democracy can do whatever it wants, if you don't like it leave), you have something that is at least debatable. Of course since you have yet to make a case for this specific ruling, so you really still havn't gotten anywhere.
I just fail to see which established right of natural persons is violated by fining a company for misbehaviour. Please give me a hint.
Thats right, I forgot I was talking to the guy who saw nothing wrong with the national socialism laws passed in Germany back in the 30's. Well, just know most people out there disagree with you.
" I just fail to see which established right of natural persons is violated by fining a company for misbehaviour. Please give me a hint."
Here is a hint.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
In this case I have beef with European law. Don't get me wrong, I think that if Microsoft should act in according to the law in whichever country it operates in. However, I don't think its right that the EU is coercing Microsoft into opening its standards.
1) No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to use Microsoft's operating system.
2) No one is forcing Company X to make a contract with Microsoft and no one is forcing consumers to buy from Company X.
"B-b-b-but its not faaiir, 'non-Microsoft work group servers [should be able to] achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers'."
Build your own operating system, or find another one that'll suit your needs. Don't like it? Don't use it.
"B-b-b-but there are no other good ones!"
Too bad. Here's a tear --> *. Personally I'm running Suse 10 and I'm quite pleased. But that's besides the point, the point is that if you don't agree with how a product is made.. Don't buy/use it!!
That's the problem I have with most Windows people. They complain that Windows is closed source, but don't stop using it... They act like someone is holding a gun to their head and is forcing them to use it..
Only Microsoft are to blame here for their illegal abuse of their monopoly - no one else. Or do you believe corporations should be exempt from the law?
dude... how does statements like this prove your point? No one is exempt from the law... and governments aren't exempt from the consequences of bad laws.
Furthermore this ruling doesn't strike me as a law so much as an arbitrary use of power. Laws are predictable, and this predictability allows commerce. No matter what the reasons behind such an action, when the action becomes arbitrary it will hurt commerce and the economy as a whole.
Is De Beers require to publish the contact information for all of their suppliers? Is Airbus required to release engineering drawing of all of their parts so anyone can make them?
These are monopolies... where's the parity?
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
America is a chick?
Three chicks actually.
I know little about De Beers so can't comment there, but I do know a bit about airplanes, and Airbus is not a monopoly, so I don't know why you even mentioned it. In any case, no one is asking Microsoft to make their software open source (the equivalent to publishing all Airbus's engineering drawings), they are telling Microsoft to publish their protocols in a manner that other organizations and people can use them (the equivalent, hypothetically, of making Airbus publish how to make some proprietary Airbus only navaid work, so non-Airbus companies can also make the ground based equipment to drive the navaid). In reality, in the case of Airbus, the navigation systems are all open spec - any manufacturer can make the ground based transmitters such as ILS and VOR transmitters that will work with systems on Airbus flight decks. In any case, that's irrelevant - if Airbus was a monopoly (which it isn't) and was using this monopoly to subsidise a business making the navaid ground equipment which only works with proprietary Airbus navigation systems to force out competitors in that market (which they aren't) to only work with Airbus planes, they too would face an anti-trust suit, certainly in the United States. In reality, in the business of making airliners, there is very strong competition between Airbus and Boeing.
This is not the situation with Microsoft. Only Microsoft servers can supply streaming content for Windows Media Player. Microsoft have been using their desktop monopoly to try and control other markets (the market for streaming media servers). Only Microsoft can make an active directory server. Since they have a desktop monopoly, they can use this (and have used this) to force out competitors in markets they want to enter by cross-subsidising these ventures with the income generated from their monopoly. This is against US and EU law, and Microsoft have been prosecuted in both juristictions for this breach.
The law is not a bad law; anti-trust laws are there to ensure that a capitalist marketplace exists (without some moderation, you wind up with consolidation and then the market ceases to function properly, that's why any capitalist country has anti-trust laws). These laws are not arbitrary (well, you could nitpick and say any law is arbitrary), but antitrust regulations have a long legal history. Microsoft isn't the first company to have to pay the consequences for abusing a monopoly even in the computing field - IBM got slapped down a couple of decades ago too. Look in any industry where there has been consolidation and you'll see an anti-trust slapdown or two - they are hardly unpredicatable. It is certain Microsoft knew long ago that they were likely to be investigated for anti-trust violations, but made a business decision that the cost of the anti-trust suits would be less than the income gained by the new business. In fact, I'm sure Microsoft knew that by the time the anti-trust suits had finished, it would be far too late - they will have castrated or destroyed their competition and gained such an entrenched foothold that new competitors even with all the protocol specs are a non-starter. They just want to appeal and defeat this particular one because it will set a bad precedent when they get prosecuted again for their next anti-trust violation.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows