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."
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
If Microsoft wants to operate in a particular market, they have to respect the laws and governments of that market, no matter what those laws may be.
I think the question should rather be, would MS think not opening up Windows is worth $2.4M/day?
... I think it is...
- Leon Mergen
http://www.solatis.com
Is today pro-Microsoft or anti-Microsoft?
I left my cheat-sheet at home...
Today is "different people have different opinions" day. Same as any other day.
Glad I could clear up that confusion of yours.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
If they don't like the fact that they don't provide the documentation that they want, they should not buy their software in the first place.
Irrelevant - this is about competition, not past purchasing decisions. Microsoft either do what the EU says, or they pay the fines, OR they stop trading the EU. Simple.
Microsoft never said (that I know of) that they were required to use Windows.
:)
No, they just illegally maintained an effective monopoly on PC operating systems for many years. If they don't like the repercussions of their extended and deliberate illegal (and some would say immoral) actions, perhaps they should have complied with the court's verdict earlier. Or maybe just not done it in the first place...
Game dev and music blog
This isn't stupid. When you do business in some foreign country, then you have to respect that countries laws. Earlier this week ABN AMRO, a large Dutch bank, was fined (in the USA) 80 M$ 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.
Not just that $1 B. If they continued to ignore it very long incurring the fines, it may make them subject to shareholder suits. With the additional legal costs from those, you could run into serious money.
While I agree with your sentiment, having lived in Europe for over a year, I think things are a little too regulated in most countries. This has now extended to international business, and it will come back to bite you in the butt. Already, sentiment in the US against EU regulators is growing. It has been since the GE/Honeywell deal fell through due to EU interference (read - protecting Airbus and their other golden boys). Now you have the whole "lipstick debacle". MS doesn't have to look far when they want to find anti-EU sentiment, and they'll use everything they can to their advantage. Down the line I see the EU using regulation to hurt US businesses, and the US doing the same in retaliation. This is only going to lead to a pissing contest where everyone loses. While MS isn't without fault here, I can only wonder if there is a better solution.
Lighten up. Its only a post.
they dont make THAT much money
Lets not also forget if they dont do anything their shairholders will start to get fined as well.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Why? Grandparent post should be marked as flamebait, if anything... I'll bite.
>but keeping this information to themselves is something that has been done in the computer industry since the beginning.
"Something's right because we've always done it this way" is never a valid argument.
>I can't believe the EU would be so fascist as to compel Microsoft to release this information... and with a fine post-dated to Dec 15!!
Better believe it...
>Microsoft should suspend all sales of Windows and Office until this is resolved.
Sure, and lose hundreds of millions of revenue, instead of a few million due to fines. It's not like they're stopping development - they would stop selling software for which most of the costs have already been incurred... that'd just be dumb.
> Europe is much more heavily dependent on windows than the US... they would most definitely feel the pinch.
What are you basing that on? Seems I see a lot more Linux headlines about Germany/Norway/Sweden/whereever than about the States...
> Hell they might be able to talk Apple into joining the boycott...
Yeah, sure. Maybe they'll even convince Apple to curl up and die.
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
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.
i don't think it's that simple ... besides, in this 'war of proprietary vs open' ...
Proprietary versus open is not part of this debate.
It is that simple - we're talking about punishment for anti-competitive behaviour. PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME. For the reasons you outlined it is in Microsoft's interests (the EU is a huge and lucrative market to Microsoft) to acquiesce to the EU's demands.
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
Better question -- why would MS even care what the EU fines them?
Are you asking what gives the EU jurisdiction to collect on the fine?
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
Three words:
Follow. The. Money.
In the medium term it doesn't matter to the commercial software market how many Indians and Chinese there are, but how many individuals in any given region can afford to license which software.
There aren't enough Chinese or Indians who can afford Microsoft Office or Windows for MS to make up for leaving the EU, so they will stay.
Incidentally, there are plenty of opportunities in those 2 markets for localised Linux distros due to lower costs and long-standing governmental distrust of the US, which reflects back on MS.
No. I'm not. I'm opposed to Y! and Google operating in China at all. Because when they do, they have to follow the laws of China.
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
Microsoft, no matter how many people hate them, should not be penalised for being a sucessful business.
Agreed. They should be punished for breaking the law, which, coincidentally, is what they are being punished for.
There are plenty of alternatives to their product.
And here you make a incredibly common mistake. Monopolies are defined by markets, not products. No one else sells a significant number of desktop OS's and makes a profit doing so. All companies that have tried have gone out of business. IBM and many others sell services and include an OS. Apple and many others sell hardware and include an OS. Who, aside from MS, sells OS's and makes a profit?
Lets fine apple for making people with ipods (a monopoly) download itunes, which now comes with quicktime.
One, ipods have about 70% of the market. That is not a monopoly. Two, Apple's quicktime competes against MS Media player, which is bundled with a monopolized product.
Lets fine sony (or X,Y,Z) for not playing songs downloaded by itunes.
...because Sony has a monopoly on what, that they have abused how?
Lets fine apple for not allowing other mp3 player play songs downloaded by itunes.
If Apple were to gain a monopoly on music downloads, and use that to gain a monopoly on players, then yes lets fine them. Last I heard, however, they were nowhere near having a monopoly and dozens of other companies, including MS, Walmart, and Sony offered similar services.
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.
First, KFC does not have a monopoly on anything. Second, having a monopoly is not illegal. Having a monopoly and using it to get another monopoly is illegal. So as soon as KFC is the only company making money selling fried chicken and they start giving away free whatever with that chicken, the courts should step in on behalf of whatever sellers.
How can someone come up with opinions like yours without understanding the basics of monopolies, bundling, anti-trust law, or this particular case? How can you have not even tried to use Google to research this at all, or read any opposing opinions on it that might inform you? Do you just randomly spout uninformed opinions about everything?
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
This is an antitrust issue. Your whole EXACT SAME issues thing is a non-sequitor because:
- Apple is not a convicted monopolist
- RedHat is not a convicted monopolist
- SuSE is not a convicted monopolist
Microsoft *is* a convicted monopolist, that is why they are being fined. They are being fined because they are using their desktop monopoly to force out competitors in other markets, such as the server market. Additionally, they are using their desktop monopoly to cross subsidise their entries into other markets and sell things like the XBox below cost price, which will eventually force other competitors without the luxury of using a monopoly to subsidise their games market to exit the market.
Linux distros, on the other hand, use open and documented protocols. It is no problem using a Sun Solaris NIS and NFS server with a Linux desktop client, or a Linux server with a Sun Solaris desktop client. RedHat and SuSE do not have desktop monopolies which they use to lock out competitors from the server market (and vice versa).
Additionally, MSDN doesn't exactly document the proprietary and non-standard extensions to Kerberos that prevent anyone other than Microsoft from creating a server that can provide Active Directory to Windows clients.
Microsoft would not be being fined if their business conduct did not include using their Windows monopoly to subsidise their entry into other markets. It is not fair game for MS to counter sue for bias and prejudice because there is no bias and prejudice - all the other people you cite do not use Microsoft business practises.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
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 they were made by the same company, as you propose, nothing would be wrong
Two different companies teaming up and not allowing a third vendor in is wrong
So, basically, you're pointing out a flaw in the legal system.
Look at the following situations:
1) Different companies work together and lock everybody else out: illegal
2) One company has different products working together and locks everybody else out: legal
What's the best thing to do if you're faced with situation #1?
Answer: Both companies join together and everything is OK; the competition is screwed, and another monopoly rules the roost.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
They were *also* convicted in the European Union. The EU isn't fining Microsoft because they violated US law; they are fining Microsoft because they were violating *European* law.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
you can (try and fail to) argue that the EU is a wannabe government, but you'll come crashing down when all the EU governments of Europe which support the EU support the EU in fining Microsoft. The EU has had issues *politically* integrating Europe, but the European countries have been moving forward with economic integration since the days of the European Common Market...well before the EU. They would most certainly not look kindly at MS were it to try to thumb its nose at them and refuse to pay its fines. MS *does* have European assets that could be seized, and it would *very much* like to continue doing business on the continent.