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. "
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.
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.
Stop selling products in Europe.
Deny tech support to companies/users in Europe.
Buy advertising stating why they're pulling out of the market.
Make sure that each step of the way, you tell a sob story about how the EU is making it impossible to exist in that market, therefore you're pulling out. Can you imagine the backlash as suddenly no companies can get support, or no users can buy a computer with Windows installed?
Once the people get angry, I'm sure the officials would change their minds real quick.
The immense knowledge of all the assimilated Borg minds function as one. Resistance is futile!
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.
They need to just start handing out 100million dollar a day fines and if MS attempts to fight it or not pay... start seizing assets.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
2. There would be about a 100-million-person case study confirming that
In other words, please please do this, bill.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I'm all for insuring Microsoft plays fair but come on, it seems like the EU is more interested in making an extra 30 or 40 million than making sure the consumer is protected.
How so? If Microsoft had just complied with the law two or three years ago when this issue first arose, the EU wouldn't be making any money at all. The EU has given Microsoft so many chances to avoid this fine that it is sickening. Microsoft has purposefully turned all of those chances away.
Would fining a company because they broke the law be okay with you?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
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...
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.
Burns: What!? Blast his hide to Hades! [thunder roars outside]
And I was going to buy that ivory back-scratcher...
not least because all that money has to come from somewhere, i.e. the consumer. This is really just an attempt to tax the people of Europe (and the world) for buying Microsoft, in a roundabout sort of a way. The consumer will still buy microsoft, and they will still stump up whatever's asked for it. This won't hurt Microsoft one bit, mark my words.
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.
Microsoft only has $40 billion cash in the bank... that means if this keeps up, then in a mere 47 years, Microsoft will be out of cash!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
If they stop selling in the EU, the EU will sue them for discrimination, and strum up some charges based on "Anti European" strategies.
Thus giving Microsoft more "they're picking on us!" propaganda ammunition.
"Look, guys, they're forcing us to do business here, but then fining us for doing it!"
If all I had to do was say someone wasn't serving me well enough, in order to take 2.36 million from them, I'd consider it.
It depends on the law.
it seems like the EU is more interested in making an extra 30 or 40 million than making sure the consumer is protected.
Not really. The EU courts handed out a ruling. Microsoft did not comply. It's embarassing that the EU has to resort to daily fines to get Microsoft to comply with the law, but that's the only way to force a company to take the law seriously.
Actually, which law thus not matter for the fact that they need to be punished. The amount of punishment would be. And it is.
Also interestingly: What happens if MS refuse to pay? I can't imagine there being much chance of them refusing, but would the EU have powers to strongarm MS's bank to pay up on behalf of Microsoft?
The same thing that would happen if YOU lost a lawsuit and refused to pay. You assets would be seized to pay off the debt.
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Taeus' report describes various parts of the documentation as "entirely inadequate" and "self-contradictory," according to the Commission statement. "Taeus concludes that Microsoft's documentation was written 'primarily to maximize volume (page count) while minimizing useful information.'"
:-)
Microsoft, however, contends it has gone above and beyond industry requirements for documentation.
LOL, MS may actually speak the truth, and "inadequate" and "self-contradictory" may exactly be what the technical docs are.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Yes Microsoft are NOT above the law.
Yeah right, Like Im gonna write a sig.
...I bet the actual citizens of the EU won't see a 0.01 of any actual money the EU fines.
True, but the whole purpose of the fines is to force Microsoft to do something that's in the interest of all the citizens who use MS products. If the fines do as they're intended then not only will EU citizens be better off, but ultimitely all users of MS products around the world will be better off.
Also interestingly: What happens if MS refuse to pay? I can't imagine there being much chance of them refusing, but would the EU have powers to strongarm MS's bank to pay up on behalf of Microsoft?
I doubt that'd happen as well. If MS were to refuse it could result in economic and political ramifications between the EU and the US. Bottom line is that MS could get pressure from the US government to pay up. Beyond that, MS undoubtedly has interests (offices, software inventory, etc) in the EU that could be targeted for siezure in an extreme case. And if they were stupid enough to let it go that far you can imagine what sort of response that would get from other countries where MS has interests.
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.
Because Microsoft knows full well what is wrong.
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".
Hypothetically, what would a good estimate of the actual damages suffered by the people that Microsoft wronged?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
This way MS can't do the "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run" business to anybody ever again. This means that they have to actually compete, rather than driving app vendors out of business with OS tricks. This means more choice and lower prices for EU computer customers. That's the point.
And if MS refuses to pay, then the EU can start grabbing MS assets in Europe - like maybe the Irish operation that MS uses to hide money from US taxes? Or is Ireland not part of the EU? (Should check, but I'm lazy.) The EU could also block MS from selling in the EU, which, since it's about a third of their business, and MS's annual income is about $40 billion, would amount to about a $13 billion fine. No, I think Microsoft will pay, grumbling loudly to the press all the while...
MS could try playing the victim
Hmmm that reminds me of a famous quote.
"Bu-but your honor... I swear! He-man and those Masters of the Universe keep pushing me around! They take my freedom away! (pouts) "
- Skeletor
Well, duh. It took me all of two weeks working with MFC (way back when) to figure that out.
I have to agree, this whole business with the EU smells of stupidity, sour grapes, money-grabbing. Why don't we focus our attention on something that will benefit the populace? /Remembers something about govt supposed to be serving the people... yeah, right, thats it
All the companies riding the coattails of all the legacy versions of windows will be native speakers of European.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
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.
These refer to this disclosure . Checkmate, I think.
Sig pending!
A private person wouldn't be given the opportunity to negotiate a punishment, or to pay daily fines until their punishment was carried out, why should a company be any different?
The EU should decide on a suitable punishment without negotiations with the guilty, and then enforce the punishment. Failure to comply with the ruling results in contempt of court and additional punishment.
The EU should put those in charge of microsoft within the EU in jail until such time as the company complies with the court ruling.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
EU: It's not good enough.
MS: What's wrong with it? What parts are unclear?
Ah, yes. Except that the "documentation" that the commission is asking would actually allow other people (redhat, novell, sun, ibm) to build products which could integrate with windows clients so tightly as windows servers do.
Remember that 95% of the clients on the world use windows, so it's just NOT POSSIBLE to compete with Microsoft without that documentation. Non-microsoft server operating systems can't compete with microsoft without it.
Of course, that documentation would allow redhat, sun, ibm, novell etc. to compete with microsoft in europe, but in the WHOLE world. Yeah, I'm sure that Microsoft is being helpful here and helping the EU commission to document things as hard as they can.
And mind you, we're Europe, I don't claim we're the best but we have decent economies. $2.36 millions per day mean NOTHING for europe as a whole.
Exactly...
Keeping people buying your shoddy products because they have no other choice is much easier than making good products that the customers actually choose on a level playing field.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Maybe Bill lined the pockets of the US govt, but MS did things to help resolve this
Right! I can uninstall Internet Explorer from my windows xp computer today, can't I?
and even did totally stupid things like un-bundle the media player just for the EU
Is not about not including a media player, is about NOT BEING ABLE TO UNINSTALL IT. The EU commission should have forced Microsoft to provide a uninstall method
WTF good is an OS without an included media player?
Have I lost something, is the EU commission trying to force vendors to ship computers without media player? As far as I know, the ONE reason why the EU commission is asking Microsoft to release a windows version without windows media is because vendors may want to install a DIFFERENT windows media player. By the way, maybe you will be surprise to hear this, but windows server has a media player installed and you can't remove it.
...I bet the actual citizens of the EU won't see a 0.01 of any actual money the EU fines.
So, we should stop fining microsoft and act like we don't care about their monopolistic behaviours basing ourselves in how much money we can get from all this?
'' Also interestingly: What happens if MS refuse to pay? I can't imagine there being much chance of them refusing, but would the EU have powers to strongarm MS's bank to pay up on behalf of Microsoft? ''
Of course they do.
And if there is no money in the bank, they can take away Microsoft's office furniture, they can order Microsoft customers to make any payments to the EU instead of Microsoft and so on.
If they can't get the money that way, then Microsoft in Europe gets closed down.
So basically, for the consumer, this is a win-win situation? If MS complies and opens it's standards, Linux, OSX, etc finally have a level playing field. No more exuses, it's put up or shut up. OSS Zealots, Mac Fanboys, and Dvorak afficinados can will all be sure their favorite toy will win, and be glad they get the chance to prove it. If Microsoft does not comply, they WILL be forced out of Europe. And then Apple and the OSS fans move in. Either way, I, the consumer (regardless of my OS preference) win. After all, those windows boxes won't stop working when Microsoft pulls out. Importation and piracy would also remain options (And that's if the EU doesn't delcrare some sort of emergency suspension of all Microsoft patents and copyrights to ensure it's member countries can get on the methadone)
Sure it's fun to play What If..., but anyone that actually thinks 1 euro of the fine would go to anyone but beurocrats and lawyers is seriously deluded.
HitScan
the EU is essentially stealing US dollars on the backs of the underdogs.
As opposed to Microsoft, which was convicted of stealing dollars from European competitors who wanted to develop products that read and write Microsoft file formats and wire protocols?
Do you really think the consumer or BeOS will get a dime of this? Please.
The consumers in this case are European governments and their tax-paying citizens. This may help fund the governments' transition from Microsoft solutions to free software solutions, especially those involving projects with a European heritage, such as the SUSE Linux distribution, the K Desktop Environment, and the OpenOffice.org suite. Do tax laws in European countries allow for tax deductability of donations (whether monetary or in kind) to charities that maintain free software?
Source code is not documentation.... In much the same way that uncooked dough is not the ingredients to bread.
With the source code, you can compile the application into a runnable state in much the same way you can bake the dough to make bread.
(Of course, people who have no knowledge in software design and no meaningful experience in software development are likely to make this mistake and assume that source code is a viable replacement to documentation)
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
Which is a deeply cynical move, knowing full-well that OSS developers like the SAMBA team cannot look at that src code without risking later charges of copyright infringement.
I'm not denying this might well be the case with your Linux server but restoring the backup image each time it crashes is hardly investigating the reason as to *why* the server is crashing, is it? If you're saying that no-one within your organisation has the Linux skills to investigate the crash problem correctly, then that is a different issue.
Besides, the chances are that there will be an error in a log file somewhere on the system which, if you pump it into Google, will no doubt reveal someone somewhere else has experienced a similar problem.
Sorry, but I'll happily sit here and not argue with anyone from, say, a Windows-based organisation who says that they find Linux difficult to maintain in comparison. But please don't expect me to sit back and keep quiet when someone blames lack of knowledge on the operating system.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Christ, man! Listen to yourself: "nothing but anti-american feelings in europe being taken out on Microsoft." What?! Microsoft is a convicted monopolist within the United States. "Didn't anyone ever teach them not to taunt the giant? Sure microsoft is trying to play nice, it's in their best interest, but that doesn't change the fact that they wield unimaginable power." This "unimaginable power" strikes you as a good thing? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying Microsoft should use its dominant market share to punish European government. You want . . . Microsoft. . . to topple. . . a government. WTF. I hope to God that this mindset isn't pervasive. If it is, we're all in a lot of trouble.
The Story so far: The EU didn't think handles and pointers were adequately explained (err? this IS documentation for programmers). Microsoft left implementation details up to the implementor (well, duh) and the EU didn't like that. Microsoft went "WTF, mate?" and the EU decided they wanted more of MS's money. The End.
Let's put some facts around this argument:
1. The European Community combined is a bigger marketplace than the United States. Sure, the EU is bogged down in a lot of bureaucracy but from what I see of American politics and economics from this side of the Atlantic, there's a hell of a lot of bureaucracy in the USA also.
2. Why is it okay for Americans to constantly whine on about the destruction of the US car industry by the Japanese auto-manufacturers but not for Europeans to complain about the monopolisation of the software industry by Microsoft?
3. Consider Boeing and Airbus and what *healthy* competition in the airliner manufacturing industry has done for air travel in terms of lowering costs, safety, fuel economy, etc.
4. Why do you pro-Microsoft types always bring up this *incorrect* "Microsoft must open their source" argument? This is *NOT* what the EU has requested, at least not from a complete operating system perspective. What the EU does want is the opening up of Microsoft APIs where competing products can be allowed to interoperate with Windows at a much fairer level and to allow users to decide for themselves whether or not they want to run Microsoft or third party *applications* on Windows - yes, Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, etc. are *applications* not part of the operating system.
5. It's a big leap of faith to assume that all those who want Microsoft to open up their APIs also believe that there should not be any more closed source software. In my opinion, having Open Source alternatives to closed source software is great for the consumer - it means that those people who want to make money from software can do so whilst those who don't want to, or can't afford to, can use Open Source software. In our modern world, where the PC & the Internet are now part of our daily lives, it is right that as few people as possible are excluded from being able to connect to the Internet. You seem to forget that in some parts of the world, a copu of Windows XP costs more than some people earn in a month.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
It may be because "prints all prime numbers" is much more easier to understand than
$_=1;(1x++$_)=~/^(11+)\1+$/?1:print$_,$/while$_
Ah, yes. Except that the "documentation" that the commission is asking would actually allow other people (redhat, novell, sun, ibm) to build products which could integrate with windows clients so tightly as windows servers do.
They should require the same of all OS vendors then. For instance, Apple's movie player uses hardware acceleration that is not available to competing movie players. Apple should be forced to document those APIs.
You need to turn your xbox off and get out of the friggin house a bit more chap.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Many multinational corps have global license agreements with MS.
If you think they will allow MS stop supporting their applications in their first or second most profitable market (the EU) without a single lawyer raising an eyebrow, then you are more deluded than Ballmer while in a throwing chair hissy fit.
Most people that matter in the IT bussiness tolerate MS, but believe me, very few have any kind thing to say about the company. If MS wants to give them a good excuse to dump their software (like if they were not many) well, they can be my guest, I'll be the first one to hit the OK button in the format stage when installing Red Hat on my PC.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You guys in the US do not realize how some of your companies are viewed accross the pond.
Mc Donalds, Starbucks, even Ford, have a special place in the heart of many Europeans as examples of pigopolists that trample with the notion of Europeaness.
If MS wants to become itself the only target of legitimate and histerical antiUSianism in Europe, well, they can be our guests.
To confront the EU while being basically breaking the law would be the most monumentally stupid thing in the hisory of capitalism. It would become a case study of how to shoot yourself in the foot, no, head.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Ireland is part of the EU, and uses the Euro as its currency.
Yeah, but isnt the issue that they arnet following the wishes of the ruling set down by the EU?
:) and that is MS does whatever MS wishes to do regardless of what others want.
:P Maybe EU is playing this card a bit to hard and fast, but in a few years if that card was played it wouldnt be so detrimental.
I can totally understand the reasons why this fine has been put in place as for the anti-american feelings I totally agree its a bit over the top, realistically its not necessary at all.
But yes MS does have that huge amount of power which means they have the power to fix it aswell they are just being the good old Microsoft which all of us have come to expect
As for running back to Microsoft, dont be so sure, Frankfurt in Germany is run totally on linux and has the highest amount of linux run systems in the world and linux itself comes for Finland. A large amount of europe has leant over to linux because of such policitcal concerns which have been raised before the EU comission anti-trust problems.
If MS were to shut the door it would disadvantage a lot of people but it would be not nearly as bad as if they shut the doors to Asia for instance.
Though i wouldnt be able to see the whole of Europe run on Linux, there is after all OSX
So let me get this straight the EU wants Microsoft to Document there propietary protocols because Microsoft does a great job of integrating all of there technologies, and making it easy for Admins and users alike to use them.
No, that is not why. The reason is that Microsoft has a sufficiently large proportion of desktop systems (usually through bundling arrangements with PC companies) that, if it keeps these proprietary protocols private, it can force sales of server systems above the level that might be sold if others could provide adequate alternatives.
This is the point - this is using a monopoly in one market (desktop OSes) to gain an advantage in another (server OSes).
There is nothing wrong in itself with having a total or near-monopoly in one market, if that is obtained by fair means. The legal problem is if you use that position to block competition in other markets.
Correct me if I'm wrong but couldn't Novell, or Red Hat, or Unix, Mac all try there hand at integrating all of there services and products just like Microsoft. The problem is Linux, Unix, and Mac cannot compete with Microsoft because they do not integrate there technologies as well.
Unix and Mac have always had extremely well integrated technologies. I work with companies that have Linux on both desktops and servers and they work wonderfully well together.
But that is not the point. This is a minority situation. These companies need to be able to integrate with Windows on the desktop to compete. The EU says that Microsoft's dominance of the desktop along with the fact that it keeps certain protocols private and undocumented prevents this.
What exactly is the EU asking microsoft to provide?
This is more like the clash of two money-hungry giants then a case of victim and the such.
No, it's still extortion.
Don't you think that if Microsoft wants to do business in the European Union, it should do so by the laws of the EU? If Airbus, for example, was found to be violating US law, I would imagine the courts of the United States would demand compliance with the legal remedy.
Sure, in theory, government shouldn't meddle in the affairs of businesses. Unfortunately, businesses from time to time run afoul of laws. International businesses could surely forgo profits (and the hassle of dealing with governments they find intrusive) by chosing not to do business in certain markets. Since Microsoft has chosen to stay in the EU market, it seems they feel they can still make plenty of profit in Europe despite these government entanglements.
Freedom of choice. You chose to do business in the EU. Concurrently, you agree to comply with its laws.
This is about more than ensuring a competitive landscape. It's about making sure that Microsoft is not above the law. Regardless of whether you think the EU's initial decision was correct or incorrect, Microsoft is bound by the decision since it does business in the EU. Should any individual or business be allowed to simply disregard a verdict it feels is unfair? I don't want any individual to operate above the law, and I certainly don't feel comfortable when a multibillion-dollar company thinks it can flout the law, regardless of the jurisdiction.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I wonder if Microsoft is richer than all of Europe?
EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!
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
EU has the right to ban Microsoft, levy taxes on their products, etc. But since when does a government get to force a company to create products and documentation for them under the threat of massive fines?
Basically what it looks like they are saying is: "We screwed up and used your product way too much without realizing it didn't do what we wanted, so now you better help us make it do what we want or give us 200 million dollars"
That's absurd. That's no different than America telling Google: "We use your search engine for everything, so we want you to turn over all your algorithms to us now so we can leverage it the way we need to. If you don't turn over everything to us then you have to pay us 2.5 million dollars a day".
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
no - you misunderstood. my objection is to the EU administration, not the positive way that they're approaching taking money off a company that has broken the law.
Baka Drew
my assets don't span multiple countries. What sort of jurisdiction would the EU have in the US or otherwards?
Fair enough, MS will have enough assets in the EU for a fair few days of seizures, but my point is: once they've been dealt with to the greatest extent of the EU's powers WITHIN THE EU - can the EU start talking to the US FTC or similar to start that way.
(I know, this is going offtopic, but at the same time I'm really quite interested. It's not often you get to see a juggernaught of a company and a multinational government duke it out)
Baka Drew
One way to insure this is to forbid the sale of Microsoft Windows in Europe until the EC certifies that Microsoft is in compliance with all EC rulings. The EC would have the documentation next week.
Microsoft, however, contends it has gone above and beyond industry requirements for documentation.
I never knew there was such a thing as industry requirements for documentation.
-- Cheers!
I know Ms knows better then this, they were found guilty once again of doing something wrong, they are stalling and playing dumb once again as usual. Why can't they just grow up and take their punishment like a mature grown up would instead of a whiny cry baby. I can't believe they even tried to get help from our own courts. What in the world can the u.s. court do to convince another government legal system to change their mind? That is proof right there of my point. It really is who will back down first, will the eu give in or will Microsoft? I would love to see Microsoft pull out of Europe in protest, but no they wouldn't do that in the end they will cooperate. Appearently the EU can't be bought as easily as our system can. I mean damn Microsoft it's not like they are threatening to break you up or anything. Just do what they ask and move one like you do with every other lawsuit, punishment you ever have had against you which is what like no. 182,000.
I want spam! cranbers@gmail.com
Unfortunately corporate law doesn't work like that. The company breaking the law doesn't immediately mean that the people in charge can be gaoled. Pretty much the only punishment that the EC can hand out is more fines. Now a fine that doubles each day of non-complience would be interesting...
James P. Barrett
Where would we be if everyone acted like that? If, for example America starting invading sovereign countries just to secure cheap oi... Oh, wait
This is just my take, of course, but
We bear you no ill-will sir, even for this gratuitous insult. We hope that you continue to live happily, you, your pet goat and, for example, the RIAA - a fine example of American political "thought".I notice this bit too,
and I have a simple question to put to you. You may want to enlighten we ignorant Europeans. Is Microsoft, together with its business practices, now to be equated with America ?. Please take your time and think about your answer. You will know the song "land of the free, home of the brave". I'm sure that you would YOU would not want to be instrumental in changing that to "land of the slaves, home of the knaves".Notice, if you will, that this post ain't anonymous and further, you will need a bigger hat, Jack
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
Well, those laws are wrong then...
Corporations should be just as accountable for illegal behaviour as individuals, and the individuals running the company should be held accountable.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
...now is a good time to write to our elected representatives, asking for a further push for FOSS. After all, when even the prospect of a multimillion dollar fine per day is not enough for Microsoft to provide these informations why should we trust them to run our governments' IT infrastructure? If Microsoft is not willing to deal with us on our terms we should make sure that in the future we don't have to deal with them as much as we do now.
If someone here has some experience with writing to MPs I'd appreciate some tips on how to write something that doesn't make you look like a rambling madman.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Microsoft uses an internal API that is not openly documented. That's uncompetitive, which happens to be illegal when you're as big as Microsoft. What is the EU going to do in oeder to get Microsoft to comply? Issue a $100M fine? How cute. The only thing that might ever get Microsoft to cave in is constant pressure, which is what the EU are applying. And it's not like Microsoft provided a full documentation and then the EU said "we're not going to take it, give us more". An independent company checked the documentation and decided that it's nowhere near adequate.
If you don't think that a corporation should be fined more than once ever you can write to your MP.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Try with "confiscation of all present and future revenues originating from within the EU", to begin with until the fines are paid. That would be about 30% of Microsofts incomes.
If that doesn't do it because revenues dries up or customers losing patience with this obnoxious, lawbreaking company, an outright ban on making business within the EU could be the final step on a ladder of escalating punishments.
Remember, the power of governments is absolute, since they are the legal bodys of the people. (More or less, agreed, but the theory goes that way - which is what matters here.) A governement can do *anything* including declaring Microsoft an illegal organisation, make being employed by them a crime you could go to jail for, employées could get their income treated the same way as if they'd got it from the mafia... That would be the extreme, but I guess you get the point.
This caught my eye
and it rather seems to me that you may be a little confused. You may like to notice that the licenses which you want to see pulled were sold to the entities you want to see them pulled from - by Microsoft. They might buy them back if they wanted to stay legal. They might declare them to be void - if they wanted to commit fraud. But, per se, they can't pull them as the police might "pull" your driving license if you commit some offense.A Microsoft license is granted to allow you to legally use their software, and it is granted in exchange for money The only legal way for Microsoft to invalidate a license once they've sold it (apart from buying it back, which is against their religion since money with them is strictly a one way flow) would be to prove that the software user had violated the terms of that license. This would have to be done on an individual basis - since there is nothing in the license which forbids the user from:
They could, of course, threaten to leave Europe as they threatened to leave South Korea a short while ago. Last I heard they were still in Korea. But this threat would surely bring us to our knees. The last possibility (that I can think of) would have them quite simply obey the law of the land where they are doing business - something they might want to learn to do quickly, given the circumstances. But then, "MICROSOFT" and "QUICKLY" are contradictory terms , are they not?
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
"I always was a Windows user. But then suddenly Microsoft said that they won't sell Windows in the EU anymore. I was shocked, like, how'd I run all the new games? But then Apple made this special offer where European customers got 20% off and all the game companies announced that they'd release their stuff for the Mac and then I just thought: 'Why not?' After I got that Mac my gaming life definitively got better. I mean, it's so easy to use and you don't have to reinstall every half year. I also don't have to lug this huge box around to LAN parties. The iMac is like, just the monitor. My name is Jay Random and I'm a gamer."
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Copyright is also an asset. Remember, we're talking about deliberately pissing off a multinational government representing an entire continent. If pissed off enough the EU could easily (pass a law allowing them to) seize some or all of a corporation's rights to certain products as reimbursement for outstanding debts. Just imagine what happens when suddenly Windows XP is not protected by copyright in the EU anymore... Microsoft might be a 300 pound gorilla, but in comparison the EU is a 70 ton battle tank.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
You expect someone here to actually know anything about the topic he flames about? You must be new here...
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
...I bet the actual citizens of the EU won't see a 0.01 of any actual money the EU fines
There are the 'fondos de cohesión' (don't know how to translate it) were the EU puts money to make infrastructures in the 'not so rich countries' of the EU. And this is lots of money. So MS money may end up there.
When did Apple got the movie player monopoly?
They get their PhD, the relatively impoverished Eastern nations get the nucleus of an IT industry, and sourceforge winds up full of incredibly useful free software derived from projects by obscure grad students in some European country you've never heard of.
Imagine an army of Linuses. All paid for by MS. Sweet, sweet karma, eh?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
EU is adhere to the EU law. MS is not!
This is exactly the problem. MS can't appeal to anyone, they can't get anyone to overrule the EU decision, EU is both the judge and the prosecutor in this case, and they are allowed to interpret the law that they themselves have written as they see fit. This makes it very important for them to be clear, fair and concise. MS may have broken laws and abused their position to gain unfair advantage. This is of course something that a government should control and stop, I don't disagree with that.
The EU had the chance to do something right, to set a hard and fair guideline for how a corporation can conduct business in the EU and to make sure that the EU became a fair and controlled region to do business in. Instead they abuse their power and issue orders and fines that are totally idiotic. Is that too hard a word? Tell me then, what good did come from the media-free windows order? Anything good for the consumer? Anything good for competitors? Or just a lottery ticket win for the EU if MS failed to comply?
If the MS case is not handled properly and EU keeps pushing them around in a random manner, it sends a very bad signal to any business wanting to enter the EU. Companies in the EU are already fleeing to the former Soviet republics. If the EU acts like just a blue flag-waving version of the Russian mafia they will only have an incentive to hurry up.
But he did say 'Last time I checked'. He should probably check more frequently; presumably he last checked on the EU's population a few years ago. Since then ten more countries have joined the Union.
It's an easy mistake to make. Geographical expansion on that scale is pretty rare these days, and the EU's organic population growth is minimal...
It's still amazing, though. Ten countries, and something like 150 million people, added to the Union overnight. Without a war. Without anyone getting hurt. Peacefully, voluntarily. Imperfect though the Union is, corrupt and undemocratic throughout and spending far, far too much on the bloody Common Agricultural Policy - that's fantastic.
Although the Daily Mail might view it more like the Maquis prisoner from DS9... for whom the Federation was worse than the Borg, because at least the Borg just came in shooting and didn't bullshit about their intentions, while the Federation cajoled and bribed and propagandised and assimilated you without you even realising that was what was happening :-)
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Once average people become tech savvy enough to use and configure linux
And that would be in which century?.
The EU isn't a nation. There's no real government in Brussels except the one that runs Belgium. The EU is fundamentally a trading bloc. It's all about free trade within the Union, about common standards throughout the Single Market, and about acting as a representative of the collective member states in dealing with outside nations (e.g. the EU vs. the US in a trade war, rather than the US vs. 25 small countries, gets better results for us.)
So, when the US government gets on Microsoft's back over some trading standards issue, it's only part of their mandate. The US government has other things on its mind, like raising or lowering taxes, like foreign wars, like its policy on violent crime. The EU, on the other hand, doesn't have any of this other stuff. That's the business of the member state governments. Brussels is about trade and only trade - and so fighting with monopolists is not something it's going to go halves on.
Thus I do not expect the EU to cave in on this. They aren't a real government, and they don't have that much real power - but on this particular issue, they're exactly the ones for the job.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
The paradox is rather complex...
The European Commission is probably one of the biggest Ms users in Europe. Recently - last month -, Bill Gates was marketing Microsoft in Portugal with a strong support of the portuguese prime minister and the leader of the EC... this must mean something...
If the European leaders are as confused as their behaviour seems to indicate, Ms is just probably getting some more publicity for free!
So how exactly are we getting oil by being in Iraq (or Afganistan)?
Are we stealing oil from them? Forcing them to give it to us at a discount?
With the amount of money we've spent trying to set up a democracy over there I'm quite confident we could have bought all the oil we want. Besides, we are the ones that were forcing Iraq to not sell oil in the past (oil for food program)...
I'm not saying that we SHOULD be trying to set up a democracy over there, or that it will work, or that it will in the future make us safer, and only time will tell if any of these things will work. But I don't see where you get off saying we are going there to get Oil. Certainly there are relations to oil involved in the conflict, given that the middle east is entirely sustained by oil sales, but I certainly don't think this war helps our interests in obtaining oil at all.
And I suppose, on the other side of the coin, If it did help out interests in getting some oil, would you really be opposed to that, or would you just like to act like your opposed to that? Your entire life, my entire life, pretty much everyone in a civilized country depends on oil right now. If you didnt have any, things would change alot, and I suspect you wouldnt like how they ended up. So quit acting like Bush is the only one that likes Oil.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
So they submitted documentation to prove there documentation was valid?
There is no question MS should be penalized if they break the law but we shouldn't fine a company just because they are the major player or because they can afford it.
Glad that we agree. Because, you know, last I checked anti-trust law is still a law, and they've broken it, and they're now paying the fines for continuing to do so.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I'm all for insuring Microsoft plays fair but come on, it seems like the EU is more interested in making an extra 30 or 40 million than making sure the consumer is protected.
Indeed. The EC doesn't actually care too much about its own law either - if you remember what they did last year during the debate on patents then you may remember that they actually acted illegally which really annoyed the EU parliament and a rare large turn-out in a vote destroyed the EC's aims, for the time being.
The EC is a big unelected civil service which works for its own ends and I really have issues with it - it's just a civil service, but as far as law making goes, it's too powerful and pulls too many shots. However, as such it wants to be the only bully in the playground, as does Microsoft, hence the little spat currently going on.
legitimately, MS lawyers have never dealt with this type of case before. The EU doesn't want to be paid of, or "handled" they want compliance. truthfully, I'd doubt Microsoft actually has said documentation due to the way they work. It's been a joke they use the Samba documentation for their own developers. It would be quite some work to actually get a working documentation and MS lawyers couldn't handle the possibility of such a technical demand.
I don't get all this EU money grab talk. They choose an amount relitive to how much income microsoft has in 1 day .. ONE DAY of monopoly profits!!! It's no worse than the judge who sued McDonald's for several days of Coffee sales over the whole "hot coffee" thing. What the EU REALLY needs is access to a high level MS exec to lock in JAIL until microsoft gets it's ass in gear. That's the whole problem with corporations is that one person can call the shots but not be punished unless they greviously broke the law which in cases like this is very hard to prove.
Well gosh, and even well golly. Couldn't help noticing this bit
And I agree with you, sir, Microsoft and its business practices don't really have to be equated with America. When I read your lines however, it appears to me that YOU are equating Microsoft with America. It further appears to be your opinion that Microsoft is to be considered as being above the law of the land. Would like to point out that my opinion is not identical to yours. In my view, the law is the law and should be the same for everyone. People, companies, or (you'll excuse me, sir) personal idols, who do not obey the law must expect punishment - at least in my opinion.I must say that I was more than surprised by:
I couldn't even find it in me to be insulted by your wandered drivel. I'll point out however that if you (or Microsoft, for that matter) expect to force your opinions upon us, here in Europe, you'd best dry out Georgie Bush and see can you get him to declare war on us right now - it'll save you time. You might want to notice that wars are not won by Anonymous Cowards,though.I must admit to having been astonished by the repetition of your gratuitous insult
and I can't say too much. If I say "and really, %#@ u america", I go against the very many kind people that I've met there - and it really would be an atrocious way to thank them for their hospitality. If I simply say "and really, %#@ u", I lack sincerity since I don't want to "%#@ u" (who would?). If I say "go %#@ yourself" firstly, I'd be just as stupidly vulgar as you, and secondly, it's obvious that you can't do that - since you're obviously constantly "engaged" with your pet goat. No, my dear sir, this repetition of stupid anonymous vulgarity leaves me without a valid response. Of course, should you ever care to leave the cloak of your anonymity, and we were to meet face to face, then I feel I might find a well merited response.How many beans make five, anyhow ?
So there.