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...
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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