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.
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.
"Stop selling products in Europe."
Yay! I'd actually be very happy about that decision. Anyone who uses windows for home mostly pirates it here, but the government would be forced to not buy the overpriced Windows any more (The government here also bought windows licenses for everyone in higher education - they could axe that too!).
Hurray for EU!
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Deny tech support to companies/users in Europe.
yes, imagine the backlash as thousands of companies in Europe start suing Microsoft for breach of contract when MS refuses them support. That ought to go down well with the shareholders.
+5 insightful, fuck off! This guy has no idea what he's talking about.
No but, yeah but, no but...
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.
That would be more that risky, it would be suicide.
Everybody in EU would start looking for altenatives to Windows and some of them would even find better solutions than what the had with windows.
And for those who would'nt find an avaiable replacement that meets their requiement there would be hundreads of companies in EU that pops up to provide them with one.
That would be very good for the EU , open source software and Apple and realy bad for Microsoft
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
As you note, such a move is risky. Rather than angry pitchfork carrying crowds forcing the Eurocrats in Brussels to stop their cruel treatment of the underdog of Redmond, what could happen is that people would adopt other solutions, like Linux or the Mac.
Given my own love hate relationship with Linux, I don't see lots of non-technical users jumping on the Penguin waggon in the near future. But a move by Microsoft to pull out of the European market would force current Microsoft users to think of Microsoft as an unreliable supplier. This could be the beginning of the end of Microsoft's monopoly. Even if this possible future is overblown, Microsoft is a publicly traded company. Their stock holders might revolt before the European users. Even Chairman Bill can be deposed if there are enough unhappy stock holders.
In the end it all sounds like a game of "chicken". The Eurocrats are threatening Microsoft and Microsoft is threatening, at least implicitly, to take their jacks and go home. We'll see which side blinks. My bet is that Microsoft will play hardball, but will cut a deal.
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.
IF the EU want to make Open source solutions more palatable, then this is Yet another way to stop the population from paying the MS tax.
Once the people get angry, I'm sure the officials would change their minds real quick.
People should not get angry, just stop being so simply, when there are alternatives. And don't forget IBM is all ready there to support the change. Check it out
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.
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
If they do that, it opens room for Open Source and other competitors to move in. It would be kind of risky for them to do that. I think at this point, they have more to lose by not complying than trying to fight it. $2.36 Million a day. They may have tons of moeny, but that adds up quick and they have other investments to think about as well. As of today, that's 200 million and counting. With legal proceedings lasting as long as they do, this could turn out to be quite a big fine.
Someone save me from this sanity.
Would fining a company because they broke the law be okay with you?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
>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...
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.
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.
Everybody in EU would start looking for altenatives to Windows
I think you overestimate people. In my experience, most people are too reluctant to change, they'd rather complain endlessly than actually do things that require effort.
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.
Many businesses talk about taking their ball and going home, but invariably they cave in. Always. I can't think of a single business that actually tried, much less succeeded in, a boycott when profits were at stake.
Like Microsoft would do that?
I agree that it would hurt Microsoft's image in Europe but it would also hurt the EU's image and many politicians would lose their job. Offices need Microsoft and have proprietary formats for data from win32 specific apps. THey can't just switch.
These offices pay in the form of lobbying particular politicians to office. If the EU's anticompetitive commision grows any balls then heads will roll and people will be fired until it finds employees friendly to Microsoft. Just look at what happened in the US when ms lobbied heavily when it was on trial?
Either way its suicide for the EU and Microsoft just may win. It will have a black eye in the short term but in the long term it will get what it wants by playing chicken.
http://saveie6.com/
Actually this would be great for the US. Let European corporations figure out how to effectively switch away from MS, and then we can just swoop in and adopt the finished product.
Stop selling products in Europe.
This would result in two things: a surge in non-Microsoft tools (Wordperfect, Lotus, OpenOffice, etc.) and a large grey-market where copies are "illegally" imported from other venues.
Deny tech support to companies/users in Europe.
Please do. And please advertise it in advance. Is there anyone in Europe who could help me migrate over there and set up a Microsoft tech support office? Of course, I'm quite positive many enterprizing Europeans will be salivating at the idea of doing that themselves.
Backlash? No support? Are you kidding me? Microsoft, if they were insane enough to do that, would face the real threat of Europe NOT LETTING THEM BACK IN when they realized how bad they screwed up. Can you imagine what that would do to their market share? The word "plummet" comes to mind.
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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!
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".
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...
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.
All true. The problem here in the US is that a lot of people aren't aware of why their Taurus or whatever (many of the FFVs that are visibly badged are Fords) has a little picture of corn on it. (Ethanol is often distilled from corn).
And then the further problem is that most stations only sell conventional gasoline or diesel. If more stations sold E85, more people might choose to use that fuel.
i am a soviet space shuttle
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."
These refer to this disclosure . Checkmate, I think.
Sig pending!
No.
The EU is a government.
"Hard ball" for a government is property seizure, jail, expulsion, death squads, and war.
Fines aren't even softball, that's just the governments way of letting you know they might get angry if you keep doing what you've been doing.
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.
Well, I doubt this, strongly.
A public outcry in Europe to back an US monopolist trying to strongarm a European institution? You must be dreaming!
As soon as this issue comes to the headlines and frontpages, MS would draw all the widespread critique of US hegemonialism and cowboy politics on itself. And this is not limited to single nations or leftwing circles at all but is a view shared by many in the upper ranks of corporate Europe as well.
And there are lots of anti-US sentiments in latency which would tend to manifest themselves if such an issue was driven to a confrontation.
To become a symbol of "typical American" is a pr disaster and I do not think MS will offer themselves as a scapegoat like that.
In fact, one of the factors that allowed MS to grow strong here was the emphasis they put on localisation. And this was not invented in Redmond, Wash., it was an issue put forward by European branches, and Redmond listened, and took the advice.
Of course this is only speculation on my part but I wouldn't be surprised to learn they still know to listen to the locals and know better than to risk a full scale open confrontation.
605413? Yes, it's a prime.
I seriously hope you're not serious here. Either you're joking or you simply don't have the basic understanding how the world turns.
:)
I agree that it would hurt Microsoft's image in Europe but it would also hurt the EU's image and many politicians would lose their job. Offices need Microsoft and have proprietary formats for data from win32 specific apps. THey can't just switch.
They can't switch overnight, yes. And most of the government bodies already has licenses they need for the time of switch. They can't stop being valid. So, where would be the problem, they start switching and meanwhile use the already bought software.
They could simply start one (or all) of few good solutions:
- calc MS tax per year (which now stays in EU, meaning financial state for EU is much better than paying MS tax) and fund moving of the software on other OS (most effective in financial and time). Just to point you the fact, funding one exchange replacement would be cheap (all it needs is one migration tool for current customers). OO.o? Just fund the features they need. etc...
- simply start using ODF and such as official documents. With this people would be forced to move. (not so friendly way, but effective)
- start project of data certification and unification. where the only thing that would be enforced are open formats. (not unfriendly, timely effective and without any problem)
On the other hand, all they need to do is to declare that they won't prosecute users of MS software. You know, MS has illegal practices and as such won't be able to do anything against this fact until they pay their fine and start playing by the rules set for them. You know the fact that if MS wants to prosecute some illegal user of their software they have to go trough the local chanels, don't you?
These offices pay in the form of lobbying particular politicians to office. If the EU's anticompetitive commision grows any balls then heads will roll and people will be fired until it finds employees friendly to Microsoft. Just look at what happened in the US when ms lobbied heavily when it was on trial?
That was in US. MS is paying taxes there (and having as much cash flow as MS, well... imagine how big of a cash cow MS is for US officials, and this was the reason why heads were rolling). For EU it just means wasting money to some foreign country with low margin of tax proffit. No, heads wouldn't roll. There's absolutely no reason. Probably the only EU country affected negatively would be Ireland (all MS software goes trough them), the rest of the countries would be ending with positive numbers (this is, usual - MS tax).
Either way its suicide for the EU and Microsoft just may win. It will have a black eye in the short term but in the long term it will get what it wants by playing chicken.
No:) They can't win (:except maybe in Fairy-tale-land of yours:). All they can is either pay the fine and play by the rules (maybe even playing by the rules would be enough) or face the switch on OSS in a market consisting of 470 million people.
Major trouble here for US is loosing such large market. Suddenly market is covered with OSS solutions. Software companies have to compete against OSS (where OSS is taken as favoured). Now, who do you think would loose this battle and who would be the looser here?
Now you look from here on
Let's say EU moved on OSS. Could Adobe ignore the market of 470mio? No. Could Autodesk? No. They would simply start doing bussines as usual (they are doing it for money, and market of 470mio means a lot of money), but MS would loose most of the reasons why Windows differ from others.
And if Adobe and Autodesk couldn't resist not to go with the flow, how do you think smaller software companies could?
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
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.
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
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!
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)
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 ?