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."

Comments

Just a question

[jdwest]

Would MS even feel a $2.4M/day pinch?

Re:Just a question

[leonmergen]

I think the question should rather be, would MS think not opening up Windows is worth $2.4M/day?

... I think it is...

Re:Just a question

[falcon5768]

it still is over a billion a year and it already starts out at over 100 million. Microsoft might make a lot of money, but a billion dollars will get noticed.

they dont make THAT much money

Lets not also forget if they dont do anything their shairholders will start to get fined as well.

Re:Just a question

[eyrieowl]

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.

Typical stalling tactics

[Recovering Hater]

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...

Re:Wait what!?

[Trip Ericson]

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.

Re:this is stupid

[VitaminB52]

I'm not pro-microsoft in everything...but this is just stupid.

If i was microsoft i would say "ok...well see you later Europe."

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.

WOW, I got a 130 IQ or higher

[SmallFurryCreature]

Nice, kinda of odd I flunked out of school then. For your information, an IQ of 130 or higher puts you at the high end of the human race. Only a few percent score that high.

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.

Re:bad ruling.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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?

Wow, where to begin. MS is one legal entity called a corporation, not two individuals. This is a lot more like restricting a child molester out on parole from going near playgrounds. MS has illegally used their monopoly multiple times. Now the courts have forbidden them from activities that could lead them to abuse it again. It sounds pretty reasonable to me. If MS wants their server and other operations legally separate they can just make them separate corporations. I'm all for splitting up MS and letting them actually compete.

As to the source code, you're mistaking EU ruling. They order them to open up the protocols and make them interoperable, not to open the source code. That is like saying they have to open up the .doc spec after abusing their monopoly to make .doc the default specification. It is not like saying they have to open up the source to Word. The only issue is MS won't release the spec, and what they have released is not what they are actually using. After so many times of them lying and giving a spec that is not the real spec, access to the source code may be the only way anyone can determine what the real spec is.

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.

Where do you get this crap? Opening an API is not open sourcing the code that implements an API. It is documenting what is used and making sure others can use it equally. It is akin to one company having a monopoly on cars, and then switching all their cars to use a non-standard fuel. The courts just said they have to tell everyone what the specifications for the fuel are (not even the formula for it or the process used to make it) so that they can't use that monopoly to take over the fuel market. I hope you are being paid to spread this FUD. If MS does not want to be punished they shouldn't break the bloody law.

This is an attempt to throw a bone at competitors of Microsoft...

This is an attempt to stop MS from illegally putting more people, with better products, and who actually innovate, out of business.

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.

No, the fact that MS is gaining market share with such an obviously inferior product is what prompted this response.

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.

I doubt it, or they would be picking on a lot more corporations. Nope this is about power, and making sure foreign companies don't put local ones out of business by breaking the laws.

MS chose to break the law as part of their business model. They have a gajillion lawyers and know full well when they are breaking the law. They have just gambled that it will be more profitable to break the law and pay any fines and settlements that result than it will be to comply with the law. So far they have been completely correct in this gamble and it has paid off amazingly well. Even with a few million dollars a day in fines they will still be making money in Europe, thus further justifying their business plan. This tells corporations around the world something most of them already know. Laws are an inconvenience for corporations, not a deal breaker. Crime pays, especially when it is on a very large scale that allows you to bribe corrupt politicians left and right. Additionally, you can get sympathy from uneducated, ignorant, nationalists who are willing to support breaking crimes in other countries. Brilliant!

Re:EU should RTFM

[Alioth]

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.