Slashdot Mirror
EU Says Microsoft Still Not Compliant
what about writes "News.com is reporting that the European Union still doesn't consider Microsoft in compliance with its anti-trust ruling." From the article: "Should the Commission issue a final decision against Microsoft, the software giant would face a retroactive fine of $2.36 million a day for the period between Dec. 15 and the date the final decision is issued. The Commission may then take additional steps to extend the daily fine until Microsoft complies with the order. The Commission's letter is just the latest action it has taken in the closely watched antitrust case. "
Describing that as risky is a gross understatement. Microsoft would be shooting itself in the foot very badly by trying that approach. Europeans would soon discover how to survive in a Microsoft-free environment, which would lose Microsoft a big market for good. Even worse, it would ensure that there would be a huge group of ITS people skilled in moving from Microsoft to the alternatives and prove to anyone who doubted that life without Microsoft is possible. That's the absolute last thing they want.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Based upon recent Microsoft diversionary tactics (publicising the documents, filing suit in the US, etc.), it was evident that Microsoft knew they weren't complying with the ruling. That is why Micorosft was trying to divert everyone's attention to other matters.
My understanding is that in the EU they've already been found guilty. This is a fine for further non-compliance, which I imagine would have little bearing on other lawsuits. Although I suppose if they're fined some of their competitors can claim they were the ones affected and it may help their lawsuits. I dunno.
Developers: We can use your help.
we shouldn't fine a company just because they are the major player or because they can afford it.
Except that Microsoft is a near monopoly and is playing dirty to avoid stop being the major player.
The Commission is asking Microsoft to DO-CU-MENT some things - propietary protocols used by windows clients like printing, networking etc. The commission is fining Microsoft because no matter how hard they try, Microsoft is NOT documenting anything.
The Commission wouldn't have to fine Microsoft if they didn't behave that way, in first place. Other companies haven't been able to compete with Microsoft for decades. Not because they don't know to create great products, but because Microsoft uses propietary protocols and tricks.
Why do you think Microsoft is selling so many windows servers? Is not that solaris & friends are bad server operative systems. Microsoft integrates clients with their servers using dirty tricks so no other server operating system on earth can integrate so tightly with windows clients as windows server does. Even if a company wants to compete, they CANT.
The commission is asking microsoft to document some things so other companies can compete as God intended. They're not asking them to give up their market share - they can continue being top 1 by creating good products - they're just forcing Microsoft to give opportunities to other companies. Microsoft is doing the impposible to avoid it, because they know sun, ibm, redhat etc. can build GREAT products which can put Windows server in shame, and they're not going to allow it if they can avoid it. I'm HAPPY Europe is doint this with Microsoft, the legal American system tried to do the same in the past but failed. Someone had to do it.
they don't even bother to tell Microsoft what's wrong with what they've provided
Yes, they have. The EU said that Microsoft had to provide complete and accurate reference documentation of API's, etc. so that third party developers would be able to make use of it. Microsoft said "rather than that, we'll make the source code available so those third parties can see exactly what our code does".
As someone who has developed software professionaly for ten years I can tell you that there's a HUGE difference between source code and documented API's and data structures. Trying to figure out what a complex function does just by looking at source code is extremely difficult. With something as complex as Windows it'd be virtually impossible. Having access to the source code would just be a huge waste of time & money. Having access to accurately documented API's would be a godsend to MS competitors.
Not to mention the fact that in TFA it states that a company hired to reverse engineer some of the MS code in order to validate the documentation they DID provide found the documentation to be "self-contradictory".
These refer to this disclosure . Checkmate, I think.
Sig pending!
People are making a big deal out of this... as if it's the first time that the EU has ever been in a staring match with a big arrogant multi-national that refused point blank to obey the law. The EU commission, not long ago, smacked huge European drug companies with massive fines for anti-competitive behaviour... that's EUROPEAN DRUG FIRMS. Idiots claiming that the EU is playing anti-US games simply don't know what they are talking about.
Just because the Bush administration got in power and refused to follow through on the findings of the U.S. courts because Microsoft is a U.S. firm, doesn't mean that the EU is playing favourites too.
Microsoft had accused Barrett [commission monitoring trustee] of colluding with competitors by meeting with them regularly. In fact, that's just his job.
a ses/decisions/37792/trustee.pdf
His job is outlined here:
* http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/c
In this document, you will see the role of the trustee clearly is defined, including his interaction between the commission and 3rd parties, as well as the scope of information he is privy to. The trustee is a neutral, independent monitor of Microsoft's complaince.
Given that
* the process established for interaction with 3rd parties was not followed; the process included requirements that complaints by 3rd parties be disseminated to Microsoft and the commission, as well as recorded on file. This was not done.
* the process established for obtaining information from 3rd parties was not followed; the trustee is not permitted to independently meet with 3rd parties or obtain information outside of the scope defined in the above document. 3rd party information must be routed through the commission and recorded on file, but it was not.
* that the comission directed the truste's schedule (noting it was important for certain meetings with 3rd parties occur "before he meets with Microsoft for the first time")
* that the commission (not the trustee) proactively arranged meetings with 3rd parties (over subjects titled "a first impression of what's at stake", to "begin what will be a huge education process")
* that the commission sought to keep this information secret (going to such lengths as directing the trustee not to be present on Microsoft's campus while certain 3rd parties were there for "appearance issues" and independently paying for travel for the trustee [even though the document referenced above states that all costs for the trustee be bore by Microsoft])
It is reasonable to conclude that the trustee was
a) not independent
b) not impartial
c) not acting in a manner consistent with the guidelines specified in the document above
It is also reasonble to conclude that the commission was actively subverting the trustee guidelines to further an agenda which, among other things, precludes the conclusion that Microsoft complied with the court's order.
Taeus compared Microsoft's submissions to a car manufacturer selling a car without wheels, handbrake, or steering wheel, and only fitting each begrudgingly after the customer complains.
You'll note two things about this analasys:
1) it was not performed by the trustee
2) it was performed after the comission issued it's decision that Microsoft was not in compliance