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..."

Comments

This Just In:

[TripMaster Monkey]

Emperor Palpatine Accuses Jedi Council Of Collusion!

Film at 11!

Re:This Just In:

[mr_death]

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

MS blames everyone else.

[yagu]

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.

Re:MS blames everyone else.

[bigwigeconomist]

Of course Microsoft blames everyone else.... Everyone else blames Microsoft. Regardless of the merits of the EU's case against MS, it's important that the trial be fair and appropriately handled and, if Microsoft has reasonable evidence to the point, they have the right to claim damages.

Re:MS blames everyone else.

[tsm_sf]

If you ask for documentation that's "useful and light on the bullshit" you'll get compliance from the folks who are interested in actually providing useful documentation. The people who don't really want to help you out will complain that "useful" is too vague.

Re:MS blames everyone else.

[replicant108]

What's interesting about this is MS's increasingly aggressive stance towards the Commission. There seems to be some tension between the stance taken by the Commission on software patents (where McCreavy in particular is seen to be strongly influenced by MS) and these anti-monopolistic actions.

One wonders if an antagonistic relationship will be beneficial to our favourite monopolist in the long run... Is this a sign of desperation or of arrogance?

Re:MS blames everyone else.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I've read that the problem is the EU is failing to disclose specifics on EXACTLY what kind of documentation is acceptable.

The EU asked for documentation that was complete enough that other companies could code to all the same interface that MS does as judged by several previously agreed upon parties. The first of those parties rejected the initial offering saying it was not usable or up to industry standards. Seeing as this person is someone MS picked to judge this, I don't see how they can find fault with his findings.

Since it would be illegal to publish all the communication in between MS and the EU council none of us can know for certain what is going on, but I think most of us can make some pretty good guesses. MS wants to provide the minimum available information to convince the EU that they have given them what they need. They probably don't have good info documenting this and instead of making it they gave them broken docs and then tried to rope them into an alternative to giving them the docs.

With hundreds of millions of dollars on the line you'd think they could hire some people to exhaustively document the APIs, and you'd be right. The problem is MS does not really want to do that because then they might have to compete on even ground for the server space and that is a fight they can't win with their currently inferior and more expensive product. So they delay and spread FUD while trying to pay off the right people. Even if they lose and have to pay the fines it might still be a good business move for them. The fines are a tiny portion of the profit from their monopoly in the EU and extending that into the server market illegally as they are now doing is a good way to protect that monopoly and expand it.

Re:MS blames everyone else.

[freakmn]

Nah, they just clicked on Windows Help and Support in XP, and printed out the whole thing. Nothing remotely useful there.

Re:MS blames everyone else.

[replicant108]

What is the worst the EU can do beyond making noise and sending threatening letters ?

Support open document formats?
Promote free software procurement policies?
Permanently block software patents?
Implement more stringent anti-monopoly measures?

That's just off the top of my head.

I'm sure there's other stuff they could do.

Re:MS blames everyone else.

[Foofoobar]

if Microsoft has reasonable evidence to the point...

'IF' being the operative word. Some other IF's of note...

IF Microsoft did nothing wrong
IF Microsoft is not a monopoly
IF microsoft did not use strong arm tactics
IF Microsoft did use illegal business pratices
IF Microsoft themseleves did not work with other companies to put competitors out of business

Feel free to add your own IF's as well.

Re:MS blames everyone else.

[st1d]

It's actually a pretty good tactic, at least in the short term. First, an aggressive attack tends to make even the stronger group (the EU, for this example) flinch and get defensive, buying the aggressive attackers a moment to regroup. Second, from a more political point, it tends to make the stronger group feel like the weaker group "doesn't get it", and the stronger group will expend more time and energy trying to explain it to the "confused" weaker side.

In doing this, MS is trying to force the EU commission to spend more of it's time and resources explaining to journalists and members that it's not actually picking on MS, that this is just something MS is creating to boost their image. It's also forcing the EU to go back and review their communications with MS, to clarify points that MS is pretending to be confused about. In the meantime, MS doesn't have to do anything more than keep spewing statements like this, and can spend the rest of it's efforts on finding a loophole to exploit.

Of course, the downside of doing this is that it only works for so long. Eventually they will have to come up with a means of escaping the mess, because once you use this kind of tactic, you make it real unlikely that the other side will be willing to accept a deal at the same level as they might have before. In fact, it's more likely that the other side won't accept anything less than total surrender, if it goes on long enough. However, it can be a signal of capitulation, if the weaker side simply want's to threaten to do as much damage as possible before the inevitable ending, something of a bargaining chip.

It all depends on how deeply MS tries to wound, and how long they play this game, but I agree, it's not a good sign for MS. If they were simply being "picked on", they would be able to toss up examples of other companies that do the same thing, and most people would agree, and it wouldn't be much of a debate.

Though it might be a bad comparison, it's still interesting to think of it in terms of MS being the Japanese army in WWII, and the Allies as the EU. The Japanese army at least seemed to be willing to fight to the last soldier, and the allies were gearing up for a gruesome fight. The Japanese simply didn't have the resources to fight every single allied soldier, so the tactic was to wear them down, create too many casualties to continue, as we've seen in wars since that time. However, I think MS can't fight a guerilla war like this, simply because the EU probably has a few nukes at their disposal as well, and MS is simply too big an entity to fight a guerilla war properly. At a fundamental level, despite their attacks on the EU, MS needs the EU's business and support, so fighting too hard may do more harm than just tempering the EU's attempt to balance the market. One thing MS doesn't need to do is inspire european nationalistic tendencies, as it did when it received it's non-punishment from the USDOJ.

Re:MS blames everyone else.

[StormReaver]

"...if Microsoft has reasonable evidence to the point, they have the right to claim damages."

I think Microsoft should stand up for itself and show the EU weenies what's what by pulling all Microsoft software off the European market. They could then deliver the knockout blow by doing the same thing in the United States. That would show people who's boss! I think they should do it today.

Re:MS blames everyone else.

[Jesus_666]

All of these things would hurt Microsoft:

Support open document formats: The EU could declare that all official electronic documents have to use the OpenDocument format (where appropriate), effectively forcing Microsoft to provide OpenDocument support or face the fact that people will switch to OpenOffice because they can't use MS Office for stuff like tax declarations. This stuff is going to be done electronically in the future and if MS Office can't do that many people will consider it a showstopper. Note that support for OpenDocument will dilute the value of the MS Office document format because "it does the same but no one wants it so why not use .odt?".

Promote free software procurement policies: Just imagine what happens when the EU deicdes that all member states are to completely switch to Linux in the next ten years. That's a whole market that Microsoft uses. Note that this implies that MS is forced to support OpenDocument and other open formats.

Permanently block software patents: This would greatly reduce Microsoft's power to kill off competitors in the EU through litigation. It would also allow European software companies to use technology patented in the rest of the world, leading to much stronger competition. Those patents even come with public disclosure of how the stuff works. How handy.
Note that we have a very strong anti-patent lobby which has already stopped the last attempt at legitimizing software patents. They were not banned but the bill was rejected - because the European anti-patent lobby is strong, has good media presence (through things like website strikes) and directly gives them positive feedback for acting against patents - for example they presented the thanks of thirty thousand supporters to the Polish parliament when they stopped an attempt to pass the bill. Software patents are not banned in Europe, but we have people working at it and they're working well.

Implement more stringent anti-monopoly measures: This would mean more legal trouble for Microsoft, whose business model is built on "own a market and then take advantage of that". More stringent anti-monopoly laws would make the European market much less profitable for Micosoft - but they can't pull out because that would hurt their OS monopoly in the rest of the world, which they need to make money.

None of these practices are mutually exclusive and combined they could make Europe a very unpleasant place to be for an IT corporation (but paradisiac for small-to-middle sized businesses). The EU is currently in the process of partially implementing some of them (some governments are moving more and more of their stuff to Linux, which will make open standards a necessity sooner or later), some might happen if we don't stop fighting (the banning of software patents, even more government OSS, open standards) and some will probably happen if certain companies don't stop blatantly ignoring rules they don't like (more stringent anti-monopoly laws, more government OSS).

Known Fact?

[biocute]

I thought everybody knows that Microsoft's rivals are constantly trying to bring it down?

Re:Known Fact?

[dotpavan]

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)

Re:Known Fact?

[penix1]

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.

More important news

[wetfeetl33t]

Meanwhile, in other news...
Reports of heavy breathing sounds in the forest and a string of grisly murders have raised fears that Steve Ballmer has returned to Europe!

Childhood

[FidelCatsro]

Reminds me of an argument some 5 year olds would have
"Your a colluder "
"No I'm not , you are"
"Takes one to know one"
"I'm telling "

Re:Childhood

[hamfactorial]

"Your a colluder "

Children these days misspell even while speaking? Oh the humanity!

Gasp! Shock! Horror!

[rewt66]

So let me see if I have this right: Microsoft has been required to publish specifications for it's protocols so that other people can make the same OS calls as Microsoft apps can make. The point of the documentation is that it be useful to other companies. So in the process of determining whether Microsoft has actually produced documentation that meets the requirements, the EU checks with other companies! Oh, the horror of collusion!

Give me a break, Microsoft.

So what?

[Spy der Mann]

It's the EU who has the final word. They'll simply dismiss Microsoft's formal complaint.

Big fish, meet bigger fish. [Nelson]HAH HAH![/Nelson]

Re:Isn't all forms of government

[scuba0]

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.

Well you have to remember something...

[Chowderbags]

Microsoft is so used to being the only player in town that any two groups working together looks like collusion to them.

Re:Outcome

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Truly amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Isn't all forms of government

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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?

Re:The EU is more corrupt than Microsoft.

[Ullteppe]

Nobody is saying Microsoft is corrupt, they are saying that Microsoft is abusing its market position. There's a big difference.

Now, perhaps you could list a list of SPECIFIC cases where the EU is seen as corrupt? Also, please refresh my memory about how the EU is even remotely as bad as the Bush administration (Halliburton, oil companies etc.) in this regard?

This just in...

[coastin]

Drinking water at MS headquarters found to be contaminated with LSD.

Why i sorely want microsoft to lose this

[Xiph]

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.

Re:Why i sorely want microsoft to lose this

[Xiph]

i guess we have to disagree on this... I'm currently reading up on the meeting minutes. but as far as i remember, the people representing microsoft, basically said everything was a bad idea. I'll have to get back on this, but i just got back from a night of drinking, so it might take two days :P. so it might have to be made a journal entry. That being said, what you mentioned is not unimportant. My primary guide is science, so fact means a lot to me, and i won't let this hang unanswered in the ether. besides, who says i haven't been mislead

Re:This is irrlelevant

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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

Re:Isn't all forms of government

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Jay-walking is against the law. Do you ALWAYS obey it even though it is a stupid law? Should you be shot in the leg after the first, second, or third offense to discourage you from doing it again? And I am not saying that the anti-trust act is stupid, I'm saying that declaring a corporation a monopoly and fining them because the OS THEY made comes with THEIR internet browser that is an integral part of the system and THEIR media player installed by default.

Stick to the topic. This is not about the browser, this is about the interfaces to the server OS. Bundling is illegal in almost every jurisdiction because it is a simple and easy way to use a monopoly to move into and take over new markets with products that are no better (and often worse) than the competition. Tying, is slightly more complex. The gist of it is, Windows server editions have an advantage over a Linux or Solaris box because they can speak all the secret protocols used to communicate with the desktop. This includes exchange, active directory, etc. As a result of this, Windows servers have an advantage based solely in the fact that they are made by the same company as Windows desktop. Windows servers are generally slower, less secure, less reliable, and can't multitask for crap, but they are tied to Windows desktop and Windows desktop OS's have a monopoly so everyone has to talk to them.

Thus MS was convicted, as they had been in the US and several other countries and as part of their punishment they were ordered to document all those secret interfaces by which their server was being illegally given an advantage. They are in the process of trying to weasel out of that. The reason: they know they can't compete in a fair market but they want to take over that market anyway and they don't mind breaking the law until someone manages to force them to stop.

If you'd like an explanation as to why bundling the browser and media player are illegal and bad for the industry (and can't already see the parallel) just ask, or go ahead and do a Google search. Antitrust law is very well explained many places online.

The long and short is they broke the law and it hurt everyone in the industry. I know a number of sysadmins who run Windows servers as well as Linux simply because they need something that can talk to exchange and active directory. Those servers usually only run one application, since Windows becomes unstable with multiple ones under load. They basically suck, but MS was paid for them anyway. How many billions of dollars did that suck out of countries around the globe? How many cool new technologies were not developed as people struggled to reverse engineer these secret protocols? How much manpower was wasted? How much did the computing industry suffer?

Re:You forget ...

[AJWM]

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.

Re:Next:

[bhiestand]

Next: GWB says EU possesses weapons of mass destruction

Yeah, but that would be true.

In other news...

[rice_burners_suck]

... The Microsoft lawsuit against the European Union for collusion, in which Microsoft demanded damages in the form of land, has ended today, with a verdict in Microsoft's favor. After a short transition period, all EU countries will become the property of Microsoft.

A Microsoft spokesperson said the United States will be sued next.

Re:This is irrlelevant

[maggern]

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.

Lawyer tricks

[Tom]

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.

Re:I'm with M$

[DerWulf]

I'm a german and I'd have no problem if every last one wehrmacht-soldier would have been put to death. And your logic is faulty: imprisoning a kidnapper is not kidnapping just as killing a murderer is not murder. Germany didn't get the kind of punishment it so well deserved. The allies even showed mercy.