Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Accuses European Union of Collusion
GarbagePailKid wrote to mention the news that Microsoft has filed a formal complaint alleging that the EU colluded with company rivals and hid critical documents during the EU regulation hearings. According to Microsoft: "While the documents provided do not include the direct correspondence between the commission and its technical experts, they show that the commission, the trustee, and Microsoft's adversaries were secretly collaborating throughout the fall of 2005 in a manner inconsistent with the commission's role as neutral regulator and the Trustee's role as independent monitor..."
This is more of the same. Microsoft doesn't seem to have enough fingers to point for blame, of course, except for at anyone but themselves.
A previous slashdot thread discussed Microsoft's "published" documents whereby Microsoft, unsuccessful in their attempts to win over the European Union, instead published their documentation and responses, trying to drum up public support for their ostensible compliance.
Now Microsoft wants to blame the EU and other companies for colluding against them. Poppycock! There would be almost no other way to define the complaint... it basically is about other companies, and Microsoft's tactics in that marketplace. Yes, the EU plays the heavy here, but it is not in cahoots with the other companies.
Microsoft was asked to provide API documentation, they instead offered to license their source (with restrictions), which is in no way the same thing and is an inappropriate substitute.
Of course the EU is going to be discussing this with other companies -- the other companies are the ones injured in this action, and their observations are key in determining real Microsoft compliance.
that is not the point, the point is EU (being a or supposed to be a neutral agency) colluded with them. Nothing wrong in competition doing that, but not the judge. (believing by what MS says)
Give me a break, Microsoft.
This is not only about Microsoft. This is about multiinternational companies supressing smaller companies for their own profit. In this case Microsoft is locking third parties outside of the software market for servers and desktopts using OS from Microsoft. By reading your comment it seams like you like companies and not goverments to rule. In that case, why do we have a goverments at all? You comment tax money, what should they be used for if not to protect the goverments citiziens and corporations. Sure there will always be "more important" issues to spend the money on but that doesn't mean that they won't talk back to Microsoft just because it costs more than if it where a small company.
Microsoft is so used to being the only player in town that any two groups working together looks like collusion to them.
I'd like for Microsoft to win this, be eligible to sue the EU for several billion dollars more than what the EU can get off Microsoft, and then all sides play by the rules for the rest of the debacle.
What the hell are you talking about? MS built their business model around intentionally breaking the laws and once convicted of that are trying to avoid complying with the punishment the courts handed down. And they're doing the same thing in the US, where the DOJ appointed "watchdogs" have reported that MS has also failed to comply with what amounted to a slap on the wrist. It's as if you shoot someone, get convicted, but only given six months probation and a $500 fine because you pay off the judge, and then you don't even fulfill your probation terms.
The "rules" in this situation are the laws which MS is continuing to break and making a bundle doing so. They need to be broken up into multiple companies so this crap stops.
First they refuse to comply with the law. Then they refuse to comply with the judgement against them for breaking the law. Then they publicly agree to comply with the judgement against them for breaking the law, but don't ever begin to actually comply. Then they do a bunch of stuff unrelated to the judgement and complain that they're still being expected to comply with the judgement against them for breaking the law. Then they accuse the people judging them of breaking the law.
Microsoft is more powerful than governments, and the governments don't seem much to care.
Suing microsoft is about the dumbest thing in the world with all of the problems societies across the world face. Tax dollars and legislative time should be better spent on real issues not internet explorer and windows media.
The EU is not suing Microsoft. They are overseeing MS's punishment for breaking the law. You might as well argue "tax dollars should not be spent collecting fines from convicted litterers. Just because we went to the expense of trying them and finding them guilty there is no reason we should waste time actually getting the money from them or making sure they do their community service."
Microsoft intentionally broke the law for profit. They are still doing it. They were convicted of it in a number of jurisdictions. You don't think they should be punished for that? You don't think they should have to obey the laws? You don't think something should be done to discourage them from doing it again?
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
Which is pure BS. When MS got ruled against in the US the first thing they did was focus on the judge and the court to find a reason to water down the "final settlement". They are doing the same thing here....
Look at the Wookie!
B.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
I'm a citizen of Denmark, a European Union country. I'm a computer science student and game developer.
It's my belief that if the EU loses this, EU will be prevented from properly acting as a market watchdog in the future, hampering competition on european markets.
Read it likes this: it will cost me money and oppertunities.
It is also my belief that if Microsoft Corp. loses this, it will cost them money, and seeing as I'm a software developer I like that prospect, due to the way Microsoft Corp. works to stiffle innovation by promoting software patents (here i should also bash ibm, sun and others!).
[blah] While it is my view that software patents CAN be implemented in a decent way, I think that our current patent system is not up to speed with modern society, most importantly patent durations are WAAAY too long.[/blah]
Hopefully a big slap on the wrist of Microsoft Corp. will increase my chances of having success as a computer scientist.
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
EU is trying to prop up OSS and European businesses because they dont[sic] like the idea that an American Company is the only productive option... Yes yes before i get flamed, i know linux has its place. But honeslty[sic] i have only seen people be productive with Linux in delevoper[sic] and server applicaitons[sic].
Do you even know what this whole thing is all about? MS broke the law by using their monopoly on desktop OS's to give an unfair advantage to their Web browser, media player, and server OS. That last item is the one of note here, since after they were convicted they agreed to fully document all the secret interfaces between their server and desktop OSs by which they were gaining market share with their inferior server OS. Market share gained because it had illegal advantages in dealing with their desktop OS.
This isn't about punishing MS for having a monopoly, it is about punishing them for using that monopoly to force inferior products upon consumers at overly high prices. This is about Windows Server editions being used over cheaper, more reliable, more secure, and more versatile Linux and Unix servers simply because they know the secret handshakes to talk to Windows desktop and all the features built into it.
To put it simply, MS broke the law and they did it knowingly. They built their whole business plan around breaking the law and betting that the courts would not punish them enough to make up for the profit. So far they have been completely correct and now after having been convicted they are trying to weasel our of one of the proscribed punishments. Hopefully they will not succeed.
Now i will sit back and watch the flaming begin because i ...gasp... defended an evil american corporation Microsoft on slashdot...what the hell was i thinking. Freedom of speech is an illusion your audiance[sic] gives. You can only freely say what they want to hear or they will string you up denounce you for having opposing views.
Hahahahaha! You seem a little unclear on the concept of free speech as well. You're free to say whatever you want, but anyone is also free to reply with why they disagree with you. Otherwise it would be free speech only for you and not for anyone else, huh? Anyway, what does the fact that they are an American company have to do with it? Most of the companies that benefit from this and are advising the EU are also American. Your nationalism is badly misplaced
Slashdot has always been anti-MS, often regardless of actual merit.
Probably because of the number of slashdotters (vs the general public) who actually understand the industry, and/or work in it.
The fact that Microsoft is apparently incapable of documenting their interfaces is symptomatic of the development "methodology" within MS, and the quality of their product (bugs? viruses? etc) is another symptom. The misery that their whale dreck has caused many said slashdotters is the main reason for said anti-MS sentiment -- and actually that has everything to do with actual merit.
-- Alastair
Yeah, but that would be true.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
hahaha, typical american to think that europeans are jealous on something you've got. How many times have I not heard that argument?
Your arguments fail because of this simple fact: Selling some good products that most consumers want, does not mean you can abuse market power to sabotage free competition. Its like : "Microsoft's products are the best, so they can do whatever they want and break the law". Don't think so, pal.
your retorical efforts to create sympathy and stop flaming with statements like "Freedom of speech is an illusion your audiance gives." are just plain stupid. You don't need to defend that you're defending MS, plz.
Nothing to see here, move on. Just standard lawyer tricks - if you can't win based on the merits of your case, try to win based on formalities.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org