Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Subpoenas Thrown out of Court

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the take-your-business-elsewhere dept.

liliafan writes "Following Microsoft's attempt to subpoena documents through US courts, relating to their ongoing anti-trust case in the UK, the judge in California has thrown the case out of court citing: 'As a matter of comity, this court is unwilling to order discovery when doing so will interfere with the European Commission's orderly handling of its own enforcement proceedings.' as his reasoning."

32 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. Ah, the backdoor approach. by rob_squared · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm glad that the judge was paying attention. On average I have more respect for judges than elected officials (mind you, not 100% of the time).

    And I learned a new word, comity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comity

    Comity is a term used in international law (and in the law governing relations between U.S. states) to describe an informal principle that nations will extend certain courtesies to other nations, particularly by recognizing the validity and effect of their executive, legislative, and judicial acts. This principle is most frequently invoked by courts, which will not act in a way that demeans the jurisdiction, laws or judicial decisions of another country.

    --
    I don't get it.
    1. Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. by TommyBlack · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why should judges consider other countries' laws when deciding the laws of this country
      Because that leads the other country to consider our laws.

      It works, empirically speaking. That's why we keep doing it.
      --
      Why do my serious comments get modded "funny"?
    2. Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. by utlemming · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The answer is quite simple: in this case it is a civil matter in which the United States does not have an interest or juristiction. Microsoft was attempting to use US Courts to get what they couldn't get in European Courts. The best analogy would be having your Mom tell you can't get into the cookie jar so you turn around and ask Dad (at least in my house, we learned that you don't do that because bad things happen) Also, the matter is in European Courts. If Microsoft was attempting to compel an order from a European Court it would be a whole different matter. But Microsoft wants to get into the cookie jar, and so it is asking a US Court to help when European Courts won't allow it. Frankly, I would love to see the European Commision have a hayday with it. While the Commision may not be able to do anything since the attempt happened on US soil and hence the Commision does not have jurisition, it goes to speak rather strongly about Microsofts attitudes and behaviors.

      But as another poster said, your orginional post is a straw-man argument. This is a civil matter that deals with the business laws internationally. It has NOTHING to do with human rights, which by the way are protected by international law. As the world becomes more intermestic (the idea that domestic or international issues have internation or domestic implications, consquences and effects), nations respecting other nation's laws will become more and more important.

      --
      The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
    3. Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not about recognizing any other country's laws as being valid here, which would of course be rather ridiculous (despite this we do it quite often through international treaties, and I stand behind my judgement), but not attempting to extend U.S. law onto another nation in a way that would diminish their sovereignty. This is the international case, but it works between U.S. States as well. It's basically one court's way of respecting another jurisdiction's right to make their own laws, which apply to themselves.

      Now, where your question really gets interesting is if the 'other jurisdiction' is obviously undemocratic and unjust. IMO, the notion of "comity" is based on an essential respect for the right to self-determination of others; when the laws in the other jurisdiction are obviously borne not out of self-determination but out of tyranny and oppression, it raises a valid question as to whether such courtesy and respect should be given. My feeling is that no, it should not; but this is a bit of a moot point when you're talking about relations between the U.S. and U.K. legal systems, which typically do not characterize each other as tyrannical. In fact it is possible, although not typically seen anymore, to use very old English rulings as precedent in U.S. courts. (You see this sometimes if you read old USSC or appellate court cases on particularly fundamental issues; somebody will have dragged out their Blackstone's Commentaries and found some particularly interesting Common Law case to mention.)

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    4. Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Basically what the judge said, was that Microsoft couldn't ask for the right of discovery in a U.S. court and subpoena other people/corporations for information, all because they were involved in a dispute in a U.K. court. Basically, he said "we're not going to get involved."

      I think the flip side of his use of 'comity,' though, is that if Microsoft went to court in the U.K., and got whatever their equivalent of discovery powers are (power to have subpoenas issued), then the U.S. courts would honor them and might allow Microsoft to use them to get subpoenas valid in the U.S. (maybe). At least that would be my take on what would be fair, once you start saying that you're going to respect the judgment of the other jurisdiction's courts.

      I don't know this, but I suspect that Microsoft may have already attempted to get discovery/subpoenas in the U.K. already and failed (which would make sense, since logically you'd try there first), and the judge is also telling Microsoft that he's not going to contradict a U.K. court's ruling on something that's going on in their jurisdiction. If this is the case, it's as if a child asked their mother for something, got told no, and then went to their father and asked the same question, hoping for a different answer. The father, not wanting to really piss off his wife, tells his kid that he already got his answer.

      So depending on the situation, the ruling could be a bit of a slapdown (the latter case, where MS has already tried in the U.K.), or it could just be telling them to go ask permission first (the former, second paragraph) and then they might have a chance.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  2. What documents? by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From TFA:"A Californian judge has thrown out Microsoft subpoenas asking that Oracle and Sun Microsystems hand over documents to support its case against the European Commission."

    What documents are we talking about?

    1. Re:What documents? by Keeper · · Score: 3, Informative

      Communication between Oracle and Sun and the EU commission.

    2. Re:What documents? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Informative
      What documents are we talking about?

      Stuff they've already been told by a judge in Europe they're not allowed to have because it's been deemed irrelevant. Also from TFA ...

      She described Microsoft's subpoenas as constituting "an attempt to circumvent specific restrictions the European Commission has placed on Microsoft's right to obtain certain kinds of information."

      Without knowing the specific information, I suspect they got shut down in the EU, decided to try and do a little fishing in the US, and got smacked down for having tried to bypass another court's ruling. Kinda like asking your other parent if you can stay out late after the first one says no.

      Some evidence was declared inadmissable and not something they were entitled to. They tried to get it anyway. In a stroke of good jurisprudence, the US judge told them to get stuffed.
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:What documents? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative
      The judge didn't say they were irrelevant, she said they were confidential and the U.S. legal system was not going to be used as an end-run around the E.U. legal system.

      Re-read my post and TFA. A European judge placed restrictions on the kinds of information that Microsoft was allowed to obtain. A US judge said they couldn't bypass that ruling in a US court.
      I find if frightenign that everyoen is willing to turn a blind eye to the E.U.'s corrupt legal system simpyl because it's Microsoft at the receiving end of the raw deal here.

      Well, other than you saying the EUs legal system is corrupt, and Microsoft claiming it to be an "inquisitional" system, I'm not aware of any evidence to support that claim, so it's specious at best to say so. I would certainly disagree with the characterization that Microsoft is receiving a 'raw deal'.
      Would people be as casual if this were Apple?

      If Apple held a near monopoly over the computing industry, and used their position to prevent others from competing with them, absolutely. But Apple doesn't hold that kind of position.

      This isn't a blind "Apple Good, Microsoft Bad" scenario -- Microsoft was accused of abusing a monopoly, and competing unfairly -- the same things they were accused of in the US before the DOJ lost their balls and stopped pursuing their own case. In fact, I believe Microsoft had already lost that case in the US, but they just never enforced it.

      For the same reasons I agree that the Koreans should be able to impose restrictions on the way Microsoft does business there, I agree the Europeans have the same right. Their country, their trade laws. Microsoft doesn't get a free pass because they're a Big American Company.

      Microsoft acts in a way as to impede or damage the software industries in other countries. Microsoft uses their position to make sure their products have primacy, and their competitors do not have access to that kind of influence or distribution channels -- they don't have a near monopoly. Like it or not, under the European system, Microsoft has been found in violation of antitrust laws.

      Microsoft is still trying to fight those rulings, and was trying to get information they've been explicitly told by a European court they are not allowed to have. A US court agreed. In fact, that same US judge referred to the proceedings as the "orderly handling of its own enforcement proceedings".

      You may be of the opinion that Microsoft does nothing but good, and should be allowed to do whatever they want without restrictions. Not everyone agrees with you.
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:What documents? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      How cool! You called the European legal system corrupt! And you offered all manner of evidence showing your point of view!

      Except... wait... you didn't. Not one. You just called it a name and decided you were right.

    5. Re:What documents? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You people being who? Me? I'm not an American, or a European for that matter.

      Microsoft subpoenaed the documents. Competitors said they were irrelevant. The determining justice reviewed those documents, and agreed. Microsoft tried to find out what they were anyway - why on earth should they be able to hunt through confidential documents of a competitor that have been ruled to be irrelevant, just because they're involved in legal action? Discovery is a regulated process, not one of "All your document are belong to us."

  3. Come again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    As a matter of comity, this court is unwilling to order discovery when doing so will interfere with the European Commission's orderly handling of its own enforcement proceedings.

    European Commission? "Orderly handling"?

    Surely they meant to say "as a matter of comedy".

  4. Judge Dread by Firewalker_Midnights · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Finally someone who was knowledgeable enough in these tech law proceedings, and has a stiff grasp of both local and international law issues stepped up to the plate and knocked a superfluous request out.

    Now, if only we could have this guy ruling on patent cases, things might look a bit better...

    --
    I Lost My Virginity While Waiting for BSD to Compile.
    1. Re:Judge Dread by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yup. A judge is right if he or she goes with the consensus opinion of Slashdot. If they disagree, they must be wrong.

      In fact, I just had an idea. Why don't we do away with all elected and appointed officials. We can just run a poll for any new law that gets proposed. Majority rules. Slashdot has the most knowledgable people in practically every area known to man. Just ask anyone here. And when we have to discuss soap (lower case) and sex, we can always hire consultants.

      Of course, this means CowboyNeal wins every vote, but that is the risk he takes by being an American.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Judge Dread by rohan972 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yup. A judge is right if he or she goes with the consensus opinion of Slashdot. If they disagree, they must be wrong.

      That's like saying to someone "You always think you're right", to which the logical reply is "Of course, if I didn't think I was right, I'd change my mind"

      To have an opinion means that you think people who disagree with it are wrong. You may accept the possibility you are wrong, and be open to learning, but you will live as if you are right until you are convinced otherwise. Then you will change your mind, and go on as if you are right, thinking people who disagree with you are wrong.

      --
      http://marriedmansexlife.com/
  5. Subpoenas NOT Thrown out of Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Actually, I heard it was chairs.

  6. Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? by killjoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "What if they said "screw you, I'm going home" and stopped officially selling product in the EU?"

    That would be a happy day for me. It would mean that nobody in europe could read MS office documents and all web sites in europe would have to work with firefox. Happy Happy day.

    "Of course, there would still be "grey-market" sales, and "3rd party" support, etc."

    Nah. Most likely thing that would happen is that the EU would stop recognizing MS intellectual property and void all NDAs. At that point windows would pretty much be open source and MS would get the shaft. Their only recourse would be to bribe enough politicians to wage war on europe. I am pretty sure Rumsfeld would salivate to wage war on "old europe" but I don't think that even the biggest war pig in washington would take on that cause.

    "As much as many do not like MSFT, this stinks of some sort of politicical extortion, plain and simple."

    Well it's aboutpunishing the guilty. Since they are not allowed to put corporations in jail fines are the next best thing.

    --
    evil is as evil does
  7. Re:Well, Microsoft wins by mark_hill97 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This "corrupt" California court is not obligated to do anything as far as discovery goes since its not a U.S. trial. Also, I am pretty sure that the EU woult give a rat's ass about thier attepmpts at discovery here in the states. If anything they could hold them in contempt for atempting to subvert the authority of the EU's Judiciary.

    Which I am sure every MS-hater here on /. would love, myself included.

  8. Re:Well, Microsoft wins by Adriax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wait, what? Really, what are you talking about? Microsoft tried to subvert the EU's procedings by asking a different contry's courts to grant them discovery in the case.
    They were told that they couldn't have the documents by the EU court because they were irrelevant, so they went to the US to try to get their hands on the documents. The judge saw what MS was trying to do, and said no.
    That's like running to your neighbor's house and asking them if you can have a brownie you mom just baked, because she already said no.

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
  9. They should know by now by MrNougat · · Score: 2, Funny

    The way to gather information on US soil is to ignore the courts. Surely the security of the nation hinges on Microsoft continuing to thrive as a company, especially in this time of war. That makes it a matter of national security, which means the feds should invoke the PATRIOT Act to demand whatever information they need without bothering with courts or subpoenas.

    Oh, the information is in the hands of a foreign land? And they don't want to give it to us? Must be terrorists; we'd better invade right away.

    (I know, way way off topic. Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.)

    --
    Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
  10. Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? by IHSW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know these are "stupid" questions, on many levels (especially in this venue), but does MSFT even make 200-million Euros a day in sales to the EU? No.
    Does that matter? (No. That was a rhetorical question.)

    That seems like a rediculous amount, no matter how evil MSFT may be. Isn't that more than 2x MSFT world-wide REVENUE, much less, EU PROFIT?
    Where are you getting your numbers? Do you even have sources? Or are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?

    "What if they don't pay?"
    Their assets within the EU will be seized and auctioned off to pay for related debts, treated as though the company were to go bankrupt. The employees of said assets would be left to look elsewhere for companies to remain loyal to, ergo lose their jobs at EU-MSFT.

    What if they said "screw you, I'm going home" and stopped officially selling product in the EU?
    See above, as well as their stock price falling sharply because their stock holders wouldn't like their company to refuse business with an entire continent.

    As much as many do not like MSFT, this stinks of some sort of politicical extortion, plain and simple.
    It has been debated until the cows eventually came home that MSFT deserves this punishment. I don't know how you managed to get modded up to 3, Insightful.

  11. Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? by ScriptedReplay · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know these are "stupid" questions, on many levels (especially in this venue), but does MSFT even make 200-million Euros a day in sales to the EU? No.

    Here's another 'no' - as in 'stupid article typo' no. The fine seems to be in fact up to €2.4M/day (see here for instance) I mean, this has been going on for quite a while now and the fine had been brought up even on /. several times. €200M/day should have looked suspicious to anyone vaguely tracking the thing.

  12. Solution - Just make Wal-Mart sell software! by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Funny
    If the EU courts mandate that only Wal-Mart can sell Microsoft products, then the problem will be solved, right?

    Cool people will no longer buy it, and Wal-Mart will beat the price down to where Microsoft makes no profit, so all the un-cool buyers will not be ripped off!

    win-win-win!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  13. Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? by CrankyOldBastard · · Score: 2, Insightful
    2) Not recognizing MSFT's intellectual property would be a very, very stupid move. It would put in doubt all the other company's IP security.

    And what legal basis is there anyway? MSFT has secured copyrights, you can't remove them unless there is a copyright infringement or some other IP-related issues. Dropping IP just because the company won't sell in your market, is stupid, stupid, stupid.

    What's stupid is using the term "intellectual property". Do you mean "copyright"? If so say "copyright", for which there are ample laws. Or do you mean "patents", for which there are laws, even if not very good ones.

    There is no such thing as "intellectual property". There are no laws about "intellectual property". There are no "IP-related issues", as you can have things existing that are all related to something that doesn't exist, unless the relation is non-existant - i.e. there is no such thing as "intellectual property".

  14. Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? by k98sven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know these are "stupid" questions, on many levels (especially in this venue), but does MSFT even make 200-million Euros a day in sales to the EU? No.

    Stupid is relying on The Register as a source. It's Euros a day.

    Does that really matter? No. What matters is that the law is enforced. What's your bright idea to get businesses to follow the law then, if not to fine them?

    What if they don't pay?

    Then they can expect even harsher penalties.

    What if they said "screw you, I'm going home" and stopped officially selling product in the EU?

    Then they don't have to follow EU laws. Fine by me.

    As much as many do not like MSFT, this stinks of some sort of politicical extortion, plain and simple.

    Bullshit. Or do you really think foreign companies shouldn't have to follow US laws in their US operations? They do. And there have been antitrust suits against foreign companies in the US. And in case you missed it, Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust violations in the USA too.

    You assert that the thing is "political extortion" without any proof - as if it's obvious that any foreign court which takes action against an American interest must be doing so for purely political reasons. As if the USA had a monopoly on justice and fairness. That's a blindly nationalistic and xenophobic form of reasoning.

  15. Re:Quite likely. by NormalVisual · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But what if they never sold a single program again, their stock froze in value, they had no investments whatsoever and their land value stayed constant? Then they'd have enough reserves to last about 50 to 60 years, assuming they paid every single day and neither side backed down.

    200 million euros at the current exchange rate is about $1.20 or so, meaning MS is looking at a fine of $240 million per day. MS's market cap is about $281 billion, meaning that if they could somehow completely convert all of that into real money right now, they'd last less than 3.25 years at that rate.

    No matter what happens, I think MS is looking at having to shell out a lot of money soon.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  16. Re:not to defend Microsoft or anything... by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sure, maybe they aren't the best company, I'm not arguing that at all, but the EU is raping them.

    I disagree. MS knew what the European laws were, and chose to conduct business in Europe anyway. Having broken said laws, the European governments are now holding the company accountable for its behavior (a somewhat rare occurrence in the US). A US judge has rightly said that the matter is not within US jurisdiction or otherwise before a US court, so it's not something the US court system needs to be involved in. No one forced MS to do business anywhere, and they apparently were betting on the EU being as pliable as the US was in regards to anti-trust matters. The EU seems to take anti-trust issues seriously, so it looks like MS lost that bet. I fail to see a problem, and I would fail to see a problem whether it was MS, Apple, SCO, RedHat, or any other American company. If you play in someone else's yard, you have to play by their rules.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  17. Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? by ScouseMouse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You have missed a fundemental point.

    They broke the law.

    To disuade them from doing it again a fine was determined that they *would* take notice of.

    It *may* be the biggest fine ever imposed, but its the biggest company that such a fine has been imposed on. Microsoft have nearly $50Bn in cash reserves, its will not cripple them unless they leave compying with the request for a very long time, however I suspect Shareholders will want some answers.

    Its not as if even they didnt have an easy way to get out of it.
    They have 22,000 engineers and programmers working for them. If they cant split off 100 or so of them to produce documentation on the protocols and API's that the majority of the world run on. I find the fact that they *dont* appear to have this documentation already pretty close to criminal negligence, and wonder how they have managed to do this with SOX about, but thats a seperate discussion (We had to document *everything* for SOX including internal single use communication protocols between applications, and I only work for the *subsidurary* of a US company)

    I personally due to the naked contempt MS seem to have for anyone who *dares* to investigate them, the browbeating of witnesses, the attempts to manipulate support through third parties, including members of the Senate, I think the fine should have been higher.

    As for the threat to withdraw from the EU, Well even Microsoft havent tried that one on yet. The EU may be a smaller market than the US, but its not so insignificant that it can be ignored in such a manner, The shareholders would really make them suffer if they tried that.
    However, I dont even think this would be a huge issue, but i am a terminal geek :-)

  18. Re:Seriously, this is stupid by ledow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Trolling to one side for a moment...

    This has NOTHING to do with price or what the consumer *could* do if they were knowledgable enough. Don't forget - we still have warnings on packets of nuts that say "may contain nuts". This has everything to do with competition law and monopolisation.

    MS bundled apps of a certain type *unnecessary and extraneous to the operating system* which has destroyed/limited/damaged the business actions of companies in a seperate part of the industry. This is a complete misuse of monopolistic power (using your monopoly in the OS market to enforce monopolies in other computer software markets).

    The browser issue destroyed Netscape, not because IE was technically superior, not because IE was cheaper, not because IE was "chosen" by more people but purely on the fact that it was put into Windows as the default and *people reasonably assumed that it was the only/best browser to work on Windows*.

    Windows Media Player similarly seriously injured places like Real Networks, Quicktime etc.

    It isn't about what a consumer *could* do, it's about how easy it is to do it and whether MS gets an unfair advantage from having a monopoly in the OS market - it does. With Microsoft bundling antispyware now, this will have damaged the sales of companies that were not competing with MS and now, instantaneously, cannot compete fairly because MS can push antispyware automatically onto millions of PC's worldwide.

    Monopoly is bad on many scales - on the scale of the little people who "have to" use IE because they have it already and it would take (to them) enormous effort/skill to install other software that does exactly the same tasks. On the scale of small business which, overnight, can lose their entire business because MS "owns" several millions PC's and the people who use them. On the scale of large businesses who see massive losses based not on MS's innovation but on the power of their existing installed base IN ANOTHER PART OF THE INDUSTRY. On the scale of governments and nations who watch all their computer industry fade and die and their IT costs rise because a foreign company has made it impractical to use ANYTHING but their software.

    Monopoly is not good for anyone but the monopolist. Unchecked, they just get more and more powerful until you're buying Microsoft Barney Cereal to go into your Microsoft Breakfast Bowl with your Cowsoft (a subsidiary of Microsoft) Milk. Or until your local Microsoft Law Enforcement Officer comes to knock on your Microsoft Door.

    Monopoly stifles innovation (you can invent the best browser in the world but 90% of people will never even SEE it in an unfair market, let alone install it or use it in preference to their browser), destroys competition (what's the point in fighting for the 5% of the market you *can* get when you could just let yourself get taken over by MS or sell the product to them instead?), limits new business startup (where do you even BEGIN to break into a monopolists global industry if they can do all that they can to stop you even starting up?), raises prices (MS can pretty much charge what they like because you "have to have" MS) and continues to reinforce the monopolists position.

    I work in a primary school (ages 5-10) - the kids call any word processor software Word or Microsoft Word. They only ever look for a "blue e" to get on the Internet. Changing the icon blows their mind. Unfortunately they do this because THE TEACHER HAS TAUGHT THIS. Every teacher in my area teaches like this and every adult who works in a primary school works the same way and gets similarly confused (I've met one person who knew what Opera was and one who used OpenOffice out of approx 200 adult staff?).

    As far as they are concerned, Word is the only wordprocessor, Excel the only spreadsheet, Outlook the only email program (apart from Hotmail). I tell them I don't run Windows at home and they are absolutely dumbfounded as to what other options there are! Some don't even understand what I mean by that because Windows *is* computers in their mind.

    Can you not see just how dangerous that is, from a social, economic or teaching our future kids viewpoint?

  19. Re:Seriously, this is stupid by LeRandy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, the main thrust of this antitrust case is Windows Networking protocols. It is not possible for a server OS vendor to sell a server OS that works as well with Windows clients as Windows Server. Yes, you can release third party drivers, but it would be very hard to get them certified, and many companies won't touch third-party drivers because they can wreak havoc with systems, or system security. The ruling essentially covers the fact that MS is using its dominance of the desktop market to push server OS sales. So the antitrust ruling says that MS have to release full documentation of their networking protocols to anyone who wants them. Problem is, so far, they've tried releasing their own source-code - which is about as helpful as giving a Home Depot customer the instructions on how to cut the pieces of wood that make up their furniture, rather than the instructions of how to put them together.

    Windows Media Player is a red-herring here - MS have ALREADY COMPLIED with that section of the ruling.

  20. Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? by CAPSLOCK2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    first, the article is wrong, its 2M/day, not 200M. But as this has been going on for over 100 days, the total fine is over 200M .


    What if they said "screw you, I'm going home" and stopped officially selling product in the EU?


    The EU would instantly stop using all computers, and everyone will die.
    No, stop, wait, that's not what would happen. In the beginning nothing would happen, all those computers running MS would continue to work just fine.
    But new computers will not be running Windows. They will run something else, probably Linux or Mac OS. As soon as the EU starts using anything else, a lot of companies will start writing software for the new platform. This would instantly solve the (perceived) problems with the availability of applications and support.
    Retreating from Europe (or any other big market) would be the best gift Microsoft could give there competitors.

    Besides, MS would still be required to support there older products. Contract is contract. If they didn't the EU would sue them again, and the US would probably agree that MS has to stick to there contract, and help the EU to punish MS.
    This way the EU would become a pure money sink, without any rewards whatsoever.

  21. Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "What if they said "screw you, I'm going home" and stopped officially selling product in the EU?"
    ...No, stop, wait, that's not what would happen. In the beginning nothing would happen, all those computers running MS would continue to work just fine. But new computers will not be running Windows.

    Actually, none of the above would happen. What would happen would be the MS shareholders would hold an emergency meeting and fire whoever made that decision. Then they would put a new person in charge who would apologize for his predecessor's insanity and go back to business as usual. No one passes up billions in profit to avoid less than a quarter of that in fines. No one strategically gives one of the largest markets in the world to their competitors.

    Even if they did, they would still be violating EU law and refusing to comply with a court order, they'd just be breaking more laws as well. If ever there was a more blatant antitrust violation than refusing to do business with all of Europe, I've never heard of it. MS has people and a huge number of assets in Europe. The people can be thrown in jail if they don't comply. The assets can be seized. MS can't move their property out of the EU. They can't convince all their employees to illegally emigrate somewhere. They certainly can't somehow move their "intellectual property" out of the EU, since it is controlled and enforced by the EU governments.

    Most likely in that event, MS europe would be ordered to divorce themselves from their parent corporation and would operate as a separate company (or companies). They would be forced to abide by EU law or they'd be tossed in jail. The intellectual property rights owned by MS would be granted to them within the EU.