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. "
Still just a slap on the wrist until they actually get Microsoft to end its anti-competitive practices. The day a government actually gets Microsoft to change its corporate conduct is the day I'll applaud.
Developers: We can use your help.
I have to disagree. There is already a strong movement in favor of open source in Europe and it is merely the habit of having Microsoft and the pain of switching that prevents them fom moving over sooner than later. To have Microsoft pull out support would only hasten the move. And once Europe goes open source, the rest of their neighbors won't be far behind. Will this affect the U.S. market much? If the U.S.'s speedy change to the metric system is any indication...
MS can't leave Europe because it makes much more than a couple millions a day.. and it can't deny support for european users as when they sell a product they commit to support it
Stop selling products in Europe.
Deny tech support to companies/users in Europe.
Buy advertising stating why they're pulling out of the market.
Which would only underline the EU's point.
Can you imagine the backlash
Yes I can, but I think this backlash would not quite be in the same direction as you think. In fact, it would be the worst thing Microsoft could ever do. I know I would certainly boycott a company that thought it was above the law.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I agree with you re: opensource, however consider this analogy:
It would be great to get off gasoline- But if gasoline were suddenly unavailable, despite the fact that we could grow corn and use ethanol or walk or whatever (the replacement isn't the issue), the unplanned switchover would be very painful....
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
Doing that would be the single biggest (and stupidest) gamble Microsoft would have ever taken. Not only do they stand to lose *all* of the business in the EU for the duration of their "protest," but if the protest backfired and they looked further like scum, they stand to *also* pay the fine. Not to mention their competitors (apple, IBM, Sun, Red Hat) would gain significant mindshare. It may even prove to the EU that Microsoft is not only an abusive Monopoly, but one that must be dismantled at all costs. If there's any political pressure that might result in a US government imposed MS breakup, it would be from the EU.
Most of all, if I was a business relying on a software vendor that one day decided to halt support to prove a political point, that would be the day I fire up the installer for their competitors.
It is quite possible to purchase a computer system that does not depend on Microsoft products. It is not, however, possible to purchase a car that does not run on gasoline or diesel fuel. If Microsoft quits selling products in Europe, someone else will take their place.
i am a soviet space shuttle
>EU wants to play hardball? If they're smart, Microsoft could REALLY play this off to >their advantage, making themselves look like a victim and getting the EU to back down.
About 20 years ago I went into a library and out of the corner of my eye I saw
a headline of a British newspaper from 1901 that caught my attention.
The headline read:
"Storm in English Channel cuts off Europe from Britain"
I laughed when I saw that because it demonstrated the inherent arrogance of
that journalist's perspective on relative value.
Your comment is just like that headline. Let's consider some facts shall we?
1) Microsoft is a US based corporation.
2) Microsoft employs what 60,000? 80,000 people?
3) Last time I checked the EU contained over 300 million people.
THE EU is playing hardball?!?!
No my friend, I don't think so.
I think Microsoft is playing a game of chicken
because that's the only game they know how to play.
They think that if they threaten to take away their
marbles that the EU will cave in. That has worked
in the past (in the US), but I think the EU is
getting sick and tired of being treated as a second
fiddle to the US and they have no loyalty to Microsoft.
No, I think Microsoft is about to discover that the
EU doesn't play by Microsoft's rules.
--- Johnny
The EU courts ruled that they need to supply the information to competitors. They did not say commercial competitors. They did not say they could change a fee for it. (One could argue that they didn't say they couldn't but that's just bullsit weaseling that they won't get away with.) But to stipulate that the license on the information is that it could not be released to the public is 100% wrong and against the demands of the EU courts.
"Competitors" can and does include commercial, for-profit and non-profit competition alike. Whatever organization that is "Samba" along with whatever organization that is "OpenOffice" and whatever organization that is "Ximian" all qualify in this regard as far as I can tell.
Frankly, this is kind of fun to watch Microsoft in this losing battle. They are attempting to play this the way they played it in the U.S. and these people AREN'T Americans and probably dislike American companies... especially arrogant ones like Microsoft.
I just wonder if I will have to wait until Christmas to get my presents...
Do you really think that we need Microsoft half as much as they need us?
So say it happened, and no-one in Europe could buy Windows or Office.
So what? We'd all just copy them. How could it be copyright infringement? They're not available for sale, after all, so what money would they be losing? Yes, I realise that that's not quite how it works, but in such a situation how many EU governments would care?
Once the people get angry, I'm sure the officials would change their minds real quick.
Yes, because that worked so well for the Iraq war. A million people marched in London, yet our troops are still there.
Besides, people wouldn't get angry about this. Oh sure, they'd moan and they'd grumble, but *everyone* knows *someone* who'd be able to get their hands on a cracked copy of Windows and Office. Most people don't bother because there's no need - most people get Windows preinstalled on new PCs and never need a new copy. Were that to change, there'd just be a whole lot more pirated copies in use.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Is 2.36 million a day enough of a fine to make breaking the law an unprofitable method of doing business? I doubt it, given how much money Microsoft has saved up.
Well the article says:
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
It's been 85 days since Dec 15, 2005. So that means that the fine would already be $202 million. Microsoft's market cap is $281 bilion. So I guess it's not a big % of their budget. On the other hand, this fine represents an "operating cost" of $861 million a year. Paying out a billion dollars a year is not a trivial amount of money, even for MS. It's not so much that they "can't afford it" since they have large reserves of cash (enough to pay off this fine for many years, no doubt)... it's more that investors are not going to be pleased knowing that $1 billion/year is disappearing without any return on it. That will negatively affect stock prices, hence affect Microsoft's ability to operate, compete, etc.
Plus, I would fully expect the EU to increase the daily fine if this went on for a long time. I'm sure other laws would come into play also, based on Microsoft's obvious ignoring of rulings. They could be ordered to stop doing business in the EU altogether. After all, if they are unwilling to comply with this legal directive, then who knows what others laws they might ignore. You can't afford to have rogue companies operating in your countries!
So I think MS will have to take this fine seriously, one way or another.
Microsoft's revenues are ~$40 billion annually, leading to a ~$13 billion profit. $2.36 million per day is $861 million per year, or 6% of Microsoft's yearly profits. While it won't kill them, figures like that are enough to make investors (and their lawsuit-happy lawyers) sit up and take notice.
It's also important to realize that this will only be the beginning. If MS continues to flout the EU's penalties, they will only get stiffer. In a fight between a multinational corporation and a multinational government, I'm betting on the EU this time.
They can't even do this once.
After one time of denying service, businesses can not afford to commit to them again because now there is a risk they will do it again. You have a fiscal obligation to avoid/mitigate such risks when you run a business.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
[QUOTE]it's more that investors are not going to be pleased knowing that $1 billion/year is disappearing without any return on it. [/QUOTE]
The return is in that they can stunt competition - they desperately do not want competitors to be able to interoperate otherwise they risk losing their monopoly. If there were truly no return, then they would have made the change shortly after the initial request.
LetterRip
Also, I get somewhat intimidated by Microsoft and their legal threats. I don't mind what software other people use, but I do object to anyone stopping me using what software I want. The important thing for me is that I should have the right to take my software apart, change and fix it, and put it back together again.
If Microsoft cannot afford to pay a daily fine, they can far less afford to lose Europe as a legitimate market completely.
Besides...the result of cutting off Microsoft would not be that people would stop using Microsoft products during the transition; they'd just stop paying Microsoft for the privelege.
This hurts Microsoft more than it hurts anyone else.
What's more, having the open source culture is why the EU isn't fooled by Microsoft's hedging.
If Microsoft actually complies, then all open-source apps can work seamlessly with Microsoft formats. Although they'll be built in Europe, nothing's to stop you from using those apps anywhere else in the world. If you can work seamlessly with a Word document without using MS-Word, why would you buy MS-Word? So despite all of this, what the EU requested, actual compliance with the directive, may be worse for Microsoft than the fine!
Microsoft's best bet is to hold on for as long as possible and hope that, with the release of Vista, they can use the loophole ("But we're not selling XP; you have to prosecute us again over this new product") or, somehow, convince major markets of the world to ban all Open Source Software written after they comply with the directive.
To paraphrase Zathras, "Either way, things bad for Microsoft."
Sorry, but:
1. Perhaps the EU is a larger market space than the US - that's not subject to debate. What is up for discussion here is the EU subjecting a corporation to change their practices simply because other ventures are unable to parallel.
Not exactly. A corporation is subjected to change their practices by the EU because it is preventing competition. I'm sure a big factor of why the EU isn't giving in, like the DOJ did in the US, is because microsoft isn't a european corporation. But even this is irrelevant. The law is the law.
2. Is it OK for Americans to whine - YES - There have not been any fines for Japanese cap manufacturers imposed here, or at least none that I know if. In fact - the decrase in US car sales is pushing US car manufacturers to be more competitive - a great thing for the car marketplace.
Sure, this is the case with cars. The problem with software is that you don't have a leveled field of competition. I can buy a Toyota even if I am a long supporter of Ford without thinking twice about it. But if I have a windows infastructure, I better think twice about buying another solution. Not because linux isn't good enough, but because windows won't play nice with it. Anti-competitive.
3. Were Boeing or Airbus ever fined or forced to share their competitive techniques with competitors?
Sorry, again Boeing, Airbus, BMW, Ford... have NO WAY of locking you in. You don't like your Ford? Buy a BMW next. Don't like Airbus? Order Boeing. Don't like windows? Prepare to have problems with your formats, or your windows systems not playing nice.
4. I use a MAC, almost never Windows, so I'm not a pro-Windows by any means - but considering the volume of applications that exist for Windows, you'd have to form the opinion that the API's must be very much so "open" and "well documented". Why on earth should Microsoft be forced to remove elements of Windows simply because some other companies are jealous? I mean, Windows is a product, right? Why shouldn't Microsoft be able to do whatever they want with thir product? If people don't want it - don't buy it! On the same level - remove "grep" from commercial distros of Linux please, it is hindering my crappy home made search code from becomming mainstream!
Oh yeah, bundling. I also am with you on this one, with a small differance. Let MS bundle anything it wants with windows. Just give me the choice to uninstall them. If I don't want IE, I'll remove it. Don't like wmp? Let me throw it out. The problem with bundling as I see it, is not that you already have IE so browser makers are doomed. But because IE is surely on 90% of computers on earth, you can safely code your web page to work OK only with IE. Because wmp is on 90% of computers on this earth, you can safely distribute wmv files. So the problem with bundling is essentialy microsoft using one monopoly to form monopolies in other areas. If it was about giving their costumers a better experience, why do you suppose they don't ship wmp with all codecs? (Divx included) this is clearly a format war.
5. Open source, closed source - I don't really care, again, that's not really the discussion, from what I've heard it's just what Microsoft volunteered to give up. If people don't want to make money from Software, then they distribute freeware - fine. If people don't want to spend money on software then the get Linux or something. Either choices are fine, but for the EU to force a corporation to modify it's product under these circumstances is perposterous. There are countless other media programs and browsers that are thriving - there is no case here for anti-trust, only lack of competence from those that wish their programs were making them more money, or bitter competitors of Microsoft - and of course the EU.
I also am not a zealot. OSS, CSS, I don't care relegiously. I don't don't have a probem with paying for software, as long as it provides me value. When I invest in MS, I know I'm gonna have a problem with having any
And the EU in return can proclaim Microsoft's copyrights on all its software in Europe to be null and void, thus ending any potential lawsuits regarding Microsoft as well as causing even more chaos. Microsoft is a company that sells copyrighted material; they are only able to do so due to copyright laws, so if the government refuses to enforce said laws for Microsoft, their actual presence becomes irrelevant.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'