New Blow for Microsoft in EU Row

twitter writes "The BBC is reporting on a stinging rebuke to Microsoft and their last defensive move in the EU anti-trust trials. Boston district court judge Mark Wolf accused Microsoft of trying to 'circumvent and undermine' European Law by requesting Novell documents. The story reminds us that last month, a federal judge in California denied subpoenas of Oracle and Sun for the same reasons, that a New York judge is currently considering a request against IBM and that Microsoft will be appealing their March 2004 conviction next week and may face millions of dollars of fines a day. New complaints were made just two months ago."

Comments

Millions a day.....

[rufuseddy]

I only make about 50.....

Fist

[StarKruzr]

Prost?

I still don't get it

[7of7]

I know that Microsoft has a genuinely shady past in terms of business practices, but the "new charges" seem to be awfully weak to me. From TLFA "as well as the bundling of Windows Media Player and Windows Media Server with its desktop and server operating system respectively." Now I could be wrong, but last time I checked every OS comes with a Media Player. At some point you just have to wonder what the real point of these suits is if they're not going to call MS on its real bad business practices and will instead throw questionable charges at Microsoft. That's an awfully weak case IMHOP.

Re:I still don't get it

[mrchaotica]

Now I could be wrong, but last time I checked every OS comes with a Media Player.

Yeah, but unlike Windows, every other OS is not a monopoly! The rules about bundling are different for monopolies and non-monopolies, which is why it's illegal for Microsoft but legal for everyone else.

You're right that the charge is weak in isolation because it couldn't establish Microsoft as a monopoly by itself. However, it is useful in combination with all the other charges that have been levied against them, because it provides yet another example of the abuse that Microsoft has already been proven to engage in.

In other words, this charge says "not only have they formerly abused their monopoly (which has already been proven), but they're still doing it, willfully disregarding the previous ruling!"

Re:I still don't get it

[trewornan]

Well Al Capone had a shady past but the authorities couldn't prove much of what they knew so in the end they went for the weaker charge of tax evasion. Tax evasion was something they could prove and still a crime - that they would've liked to get him on many other things but couldn't is a side issue.

Go EU! If they can nail these bastards on any charges, good for them.

Re:I still don't get it

[TubeSteak]

At some point you just have to wonder what the real point of these suits is if they're not going to call MS on its real bad business practices and will instead throw questionable charges at Microsoft.

The definition of "real bad business practices" depends on what part of the world you're in.

http://tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=business&s=risen03 3004

In simplified terms, American antitrust, like much of our country's regulatory philosophy, aims to create a level playing field on which all companies, small or large, can compete; the focus is on protecting consumers through ensuring competitive markets.
...
  In Europe, antitrust laws focus less on consumer protection than on competitor protection; the ability of companies to compete, regardless of whether their existence helps consumers, is what's important. From the European perspective, a near-monopoly market share is almost always a bad thing; furthermore, even if a big company is playing by the rules, it has an obligation to make sure it doesn't crowd out smaller competitors.

Since Microsoft Windows has 9x% of the marketplace... pretty much anything MS bundles with Windows is going to limit competition in the marketplace.

And I don't think the Europeans are specifically hating on MS. I imagine that if Apple had 9x% of the market, the regulators would get on Apple's case over all the bundled apps in OSX.

Re:I still don't get it

[darylb]

The EU bureaucrats (a highly unelected and unaccountable bunch) don't like strong American companies on their turf. In their eyes it's basically another form of "American hegemony". They're busy doing the same kind of thing as they're doing to Microsoft to American-based credit card companies (see, for example, this article as well as Forbes), accusing them of making too much money, even though, with the exception of Visa, their margins are all running under 8%. Google's, by way of comparison, is like 25%.

So, the EU crowd runs around rattling sabers at American companies, demanding that the companies basically lie down and give away product or service to competitors, "levelling the playing field," or suggesting that there needs to be a properly "European" (an adjective that is a very recent invention in itself) counterpart to every American business. As if having a myriad of credit card companies or document formats or software platforms would really benefit consumers.

Microsoft shouldn't be judged solely because they're trying to be competitive in their markets. (How many Linux distros could be accused of bundling too much software?) Unless you're a communist (like some prominent figures in organizations with recursive acronyms), how can one demand that source code be given to competitors?

Re:I still don't get it

[7of7]

The rules about bundling are different for monopolies and non-monopolies That seems very sketchy from a legal standpoint. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsof t#Government_anti-trust_suits/ it appears that Microsoft originally was considered a monopoly for the sole reason that they had a large percentage of the desktop market. I fail to see how making Microsoft sell their OS piece by piece somehow decreases their ability to keep a monopoly. Furthermore, allowing other companies to engage in potentially monopolistic behavior simply because Microsoft has a monopoly seems just plain backwards. Perhaps the best end would be if the other shoe dropped and Microsoft were eventually split into a software and an OS company. At this point though, I fail to see how anything besides another company making a decent product, as Apple tries to do, and the FOSS movement is doing decent at with Linux/BSD/etc... would impact Microsoft's dominance in the operating system market.

Re:I still don't get it

[Foofoobar]

Yes but not every media player comes with an OS.

When was the last time you were able to buy Windows Media Player in a store? How about online?

Aside from that, have you tried to remove it from the system lately? You can't. You can route around it and divert away buit it's as bundled into the kernel as Internet Exploder is.

Re:I still don't get it

[shawb]

The problem isn't so much that they are a monopoly, but they are using their monopoly in one market (OS) to leverage power over competitors in another market (media player.) Being a monopoly is not in and of itself a bad thing, but using the power that comes with being a monopoly to stifle competition is a very bad thing in a capitolistic market.

Re:I still don't get it

[stubear]

The problem is the courts are assuming that the mere presence of Windows Media Player being included with the OS is harming the market for media players without looking at the evidence. Real and Apple have both done, IMHO, irreparable harm to themselves without the aid of Microsoft. Real included all sorts of questionable "extras" and spy ware with their player as well as not bothering to improve the codec's they used, assuming their brand recognition would be enough. Guess what? Make a crappy product and your brand recognition will turn around and bite you in the ass.

Apple releases a poor port of their QuickTime player for Windows and assumes that's enough. Their goal is to keep users frustrated enough to jump ship and switch to OS X so QuickTime "simply works better". Guess what? Switching platforms is not an easy proposition if you have a lot of investments in Windows software, even cross-platform apps like Photoshop or Flash.

Where's the abuse from Microsoft? Have they made these players perform poorly on Windows? Have they made it difficult to install these apps? Does Windows Media Player hijack file formats without asking the user first? The answer to all of these is no. Microsoft's media player meet the needs of media distributors and this is why it's used widely on the internet, not because it's installed with Windows (you can actually uninstall it by the way, it's not linked to the OS in the same way IE is).

The biggest problem I have with the EU process is the secrecy allowed by the courts. Fair trials should, check that, MUST, be transparent and open. Far too many slashbots are willing to allow this as long as it destroys Microsoft and that's frightening.

Re:I still don't get it

[ozmanjusri]

Microsoft are using their desktop OS monopoly to bundle a free media player and leverage the use of their proprietary media codecs and DRM, which will lock customers into MS toolchains.

The EU can see this and wishes to stop it.

They can stop it because it is illegal to use monopoly powers in one area to extend that monopoly in other areas, ie media production and distribution.

Re:I still don't get it

[7of7]

Microsoft are using their desktop OS monopoly to bundle a free media player and leverage the use of their proprietary media codecs and DRM, which will lock customers into MS toolchains.
I understand that to an extent except that the EU has demonstrated that with the exception of France, none of them are willing to take action against Apple for the same exact offense regarding iTunes and the iPod or OSX and Apple hardware.

Re:I still don't get it

[suv4x4]

Now I could be wrong, but last time I checked every OS comes with a Media Player.
Yeah, but unlike Windows, every other OS is not a monopoly!

Yea, I mean, Microsoft, come on, make Windows not monopoly and be done with it. I can't understand that Microsoft, insists that their OS be monopoly. What's the point!

Or how about this: who the hell decided it's a monopoly. An monopoly is when there are no competitors on the market either because there's law in place to forbid competition or because the monopolists owns all of a resource in an area and is therefore having a monopoly over it.

What exactly makes Microsoft monopolist? Nothing. Are there no other OS for computers and PC in particular. Are you not allowed to use them. Are people not allowed to produce and release OS for PC?

None of that. Just Windows has a very large market share, that has developer naturally in time. Therefore they have to scrap half of their features, including basics like a browser and a media player, while the other OS vendors don't have to.

Microsoft may be doing a lot of bullshit, but over here I call the bullshit squarely on the EU.

Re:I still don't get it

[Jeff Hornby]

But if, say, a French company had 9x% of the OS market, do you think that the EU would be quite so eager?

Re:I still don't get it

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Yeah, but unlike Windows, every other OS is not a monopoly!

Interesting sentence that shows how stupid this "Windows = Monopoly" stuff is.
Read it slowly and see if it makes any sense or is consistent even with itself.

Re:I still don't get it

[mrchaotica]

Where's the abuse from Microsoft? Have they made these players perform poorly on Windows? Have they made it difficult to install these apps? Does Windows Media Player hijack file formats without asking the user first? The answer to all of these is no.

Does Windows Media player by default record into a proprietary format only it can read? Does Windows Media Player push it's own brand of proprietary DRM? The answer to all of these is YES.

Re:I still don't get it

[j_s_summers]

What media player market? The last time I checked, Real Player and Quicktime were both FREE products. If you think that there's a media player market, then isn't also a text editor market? There are companies that sell text editors (notetab, textpad, etc). Should microsoft stop including notepad and wordpad with windows?

Re:I still don't get it

[TheNetAvenger]

Yeah, but unlike Windows, every other OS is not a monopoly! The rules about bundling are different for monopolies and non-monopolies, which is why it's illegal for Microsoft but legal for everyone else

No, and hmm, no...

This would be the opposite of what laws preventing monopolies are all about.

Also Microsoft NOR Windows were deemed a monopoly, MS was convicted of 'trying' to use monolopistic practices to make their OS a monopoly. They never said they succeeded.

Hence why I would bet you don't HAVE TO use Windows on your computer... Meaning they ARE NOT A MONOPOLY.

This is why secondary rules shouldn't be applied to Microsoft on this.

The EU is really messed up on this whole case, even people that work in the EU, have resigned over this, stating the EU was out of line. That is big news in the EU, and I have several friends that work in Brussels that state there is political motivation for 'trying to find a way' to hinder Microsoft.

Some countries have their pet OSes and projects, and these people would like to screw MS for the sake of the their country's software companies' success.

Look at the case, and look closely, the only thing they could actually get through was the bundling of Media Player? Wow, that is REALLY going to protect consumers, hence why consumers are NOT buying the N version of Windows.

There is a difference between limiting monopolistic type contracts (exclusive bundling, etc) and telling Microsoft to remove Media Player.

Even you, if you had to buy a copy of Windows, would you pay the same amount of money and not get Media Player? Sure it takes up 3mb on the Hard Drive, but seriously...

What will be next? Apple iTunes will become so popular that it will be the online music monopoly? It very well could happen, then every copy of OSX would have to ship without iTunes, and does that sound like consumer driven business or the competition, getting the govts to curtail the company doing the best?

Re:I still don't get it

[mrchaotica]

Or how about this: who the hell decided it's a monopoly.

The US and EU judicial systems, that's who!

An monopoly is when there are no competitors on the market either because there's law in place to forbid competition or because the monopolists owns all of a resource in an area and is therefore having a monopoly over it.

First of all, a monopoly is when there are no [significant] competitors on the market for any reason. Second, you could consider that Microsoft owns all of the "resource" of application compatibility, and therefore has a monopoly over it.

What exactly makes Microsoft monopolist? Nothing.

Except court rulings, that is.

Are there no other OS for computers and PC in particular.

Not any that are 100% compatible with Windows, which defines what the "PC" is nowadays.

Are people not allowed to produce and release OS for PC?

Correct. Microsoft does not allow third-parties access to all the documentation required to reimplement all of Windows' APIs (especially reimplementing the bugs and unofficial ones).

Just Windows has a very large market share, that has developer naturally in time.

Windows marketshare did not "developer" naturally in time! It resulted from Bill Gates artfully screwing over IBM several times (putting MS-DOS on the PS/2 and sabotaging OS/2, for example) as well as using assorted unfair business practices to screw over other competitors (which is partly what the anti-trust case is about to begin with).

Re:I still don't get it

[killjoe]

That's because Apple does not have a monopoly and is unable to wield their nonexistant monopoly in order to destroy the competition and to rip off the consumers.

Re:I still don't get it

[Zonnald]

Because it's free?

Re:I still don't get it

[trewornan]

I believe that should be Windows #8712 Monopoly

Re:I still don't get it

[mrchaotica]

How is it not self-consistent? Standard Oil was a monopoly regardless of the fact that other fuels (e.g. coal, wood) existed because none of the alternatives were perfect (or even somewhat adequate) substitutes. In the same way, Microsoft has a monopoly regardless of the fact that other OSs exist because none of the alternatives have 100% (or even close to it) compatibility with Windows applications, making them not adequate substitutes for Windows.

Re:I still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not required to use it, bitch.

Re:I still don't get it

[mrchaotica]

You contradicted yourself. If there are other OSs, Windows is not monopolizing.

Not really, because the monopoly I was referring to was not that of being an operating system, but being compatible with Windows.

Re:I still don't get it

[Guppy06]

"Real and Apple have both done, IMHO, irreparable harm to themselves without the aid of Microsoft."

Both of whose players entered the market before Microsoft started bundling WMP. Why should we assume that no new/better media player would come along even if it didn't have to go up against MWP bundling?

Re:I still don't get it

[realmolo]

Does Windows Media Player prevent you from using a *different* media player, with *different* codecs, that *can* be read by other players? No.

Seriously. The whole "Microsoft is a monopoly" thing is retarded. Yes, they did abuse their power with OEMs. Yes, the U.S. courts did basically declare them a "coercive monopoly".

But the fact remains that there is really nothing stopping anyone from NOT using Microsoft products. Everyone is free to choose whatever OS they want. Of course, most of the "good" applications only run on Windows. Is that MS's fault? No.

I think that the REAL motivation behind most of the lawsuits against MS that imply they abuse their "power" is sour grapes. Apple, Sun, IBM, even Be(!) all fucked up. They didn't do as good a job as MS in promoting their OSs and hardware. Especially Apple, who should've OWNED the entire market. They had ELEVEN YEARS (1984 - 1995) where their OS was superiour in every way to MSs. And they blew it. The same can be said for all the other OS vendors.

I don't know. I'm not saying MS isn't a little bit evil, but they are dominant because they did a better job than the other OS/application companies. Period.

Re:I still don't get it

[mrchaotica]

I am if I want to be able to watch Windows Media format videos, which is increasingly the case (most likely due to the influence Microsoft has gained through its Windows monopoly)!

In fact, I am now a second-class citizen, because I can't use some government services (i.e. downloadable audiobooks from the public library) due to the fact that they only support Windows Media DRM. Given that my taxes paid for that content, I ought to have a legal right to use it!

Re:I still don't get it

[dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv]

a monopoly is when a single firm controls a large enough proportion of the supply of a product or service to be able to set the price.

they don't need to control 100% of the supply to be a monopoly, it could be anything over about 25% (depending on the particular market).

so yes, it makes perfect sense.

other desktop operting systems exist, but windows has the vast majority of the market, which makes it a monopoly.

Re:I still don't get it

[dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv]

they were actually convicted of (ab)using their monopoly position in the desktop pc operating system market to gain market share in other markets.

Re:I still don't get it

[mrchaotica]

But the fact remains that there is really nothing stopping anyone from NOT using Microsoft products. Everyone is free to choose whatever OS they want. Of course, most of the "good" applications only run on Windows. Is that MS's fault? No.

Yes, it is Microsoft's fault because they used illegal business practices to get that monopoly. It is Microsoft's fault that I can't make use of the public library's downloadable media (which uses Windows Media DRM), despite the fact that it was paid for with my taxes! It is Microsoft's fault that I can't access most streaming video on the Internet because the companies providing it chose to use WMV, and did so as an effect of Microsoft's monopoly.

Re:I still don't get it

[Dcnjoe60]

Apple releases a poor port of their QuickTime player for Windows and assumes that's enough. Their goal is to keep users frustrated enough to jump ship and switch to OS X so QuickTime "simply works better". Guess what? Switching platforms is not an easy proposition if you have a lot of investments in Windows software, even cross-platform apps like Photoshop or Flash.

Ummm, wasn't it pointed out in the earlier trial that the poor port of Quicktime was because Apple ported it to the then published Microsoft media specs, whereas Microsoft's own media player used undocumented APIs? Wouldn't that qualify as the abuse you are looking for? Well, at least the courts thought so.

Where's the abuse from Microsoft? Have they made these players perform poorly on Windows? Have they made it difficult to install these apps? Does Windows Media Player hijack file formats without asking the user first? The answer to all of these is no. Microsoft's media player meet the needs of media distributors and this is why it's used widely on the internet, not because it's installed with Windows (you can actually uninstall it by the way, it's not linked to the OS in the same way IE is).

Has Microsoft made it difficult to install third party media players? Yes. You can't even fully uninstall Microsoft's media player, only make it so it's not the default, but the guts are still there. Does it hijack file formats without asking? Only after doing an update.

As for Microsof't media player meeting the needs of media distributors, thankyou, you just proved the monopoly case. The only reason it became popular is because prior to that there were several options. It was only after Microsoft bundled media player with their OS that it became widespread (prior to that, you could download it seperately). The only "need" it met was that media distributors new it was now installed on every windows pc and didn't have to worry about any other format. The fact that Microsoft controlled the OS is what allowed this to occur at the expense of other media formats and vendors. If Microsoft had bundled Quicktime with Windows, then it would have been the default. The difference being, that they didn't license Quicktime (or Real), the came out with their own product and by using their monopoly power took over the media market.

That is why, with the exception of DRM, there hasn't been any real innovation with Windows Media Player. There is no competition, so there is no reason innovate. And for the record, you cannot fully unninstall Windows Media Player. The core DLLs and hooks are still there.

Face it, there are better players than media player. There are better encoders and formats than media player. There are better interfaces than media player. The only thing that makes it the standard on windows is not that it meets media distributors or users needs, but that it is bundled with Windows.

Remember, long before the EU got involved, the US courts declared Microsoft an illegal monopoly. The remedies to the findings were challenged and later changed, but not the original ruling. The fact that the EU has come to the same conclusion shouldn't be a suprise. It's not "slashbots" or the courts who are destroying Microsoft. It's Microsoft collapsing under it's own weight.

Re:I still don't get it

[realmolo]

Wait. It's *Microsoft's* fault that the public library chose Microsoft's format for their downloadable media? Microsoft *forced* them to not use some other format, like plain-old MPEG? Or Quicktime? Or RealMedia? Or was it that those other formats aren't as *good*? Because they aren't. And, let's not forget that DRM is usually mandated by content creators, which means that so-called "open" formats are out of the question. Never mind that BOTH Quicktime and Real format were available LONG before Microsoft had anything similar. But they both fucked up, and Microsoft came out with a better product.

You're being ridiculous. You're using the same logic that is leading people to say that Apple has a "monopoly" with the iTunes music store and it's DRM scheme. No.

Re:I still don't get it

[mrchaotica]

It's *Microsoft's* fault that the public library chose Microsoft's format for their downloadable media?

Yes. It's only because Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems that the library can get away with using a Windows-only technology, and disenfranchising all Linux and Mac OS users.

Re:I still don't get it

[Luctius]

And if microsoft would include those free players, there would not be a problem. Instead they include only their product, and because of the experience of most users, they will never see the other players.

Re:I still don't get it

[Luctius]

if that is the only reason, why not include other media players?

Re:I still don't get it

[iGN97]

Ummm, wasn't it pointed out in the earlier trial that the poor port of Quicktime was because Apple ported it to the then published Microsoft media specs, whereas Microsoft's own media player used undocumented APIs? Wouldn't that qualify as the abuse you are looking for? Well, at least the courts thought so.

Quicktime is a piss-poor port no matter how you look at it. It's currently the only application I know of which doesn't even manage to playback sound without constantly and violently chopping on my RME Hammerfall audio-card, apparently because the player doesn't support hardware mixing. Blaming stuff like this on lacking documentation is more a convenience than based on fact.

Has Microsoft made it difficult to install third party media players? Yes.

The last couple of weeks I've installed a couple of codec-packs, both implicitly installed Media Player Classic. So it really isn't that difficult.

Re:I still don't get it

[mOOzilla]

Please the last thing I want to do is have to remove RealOne and other playes ASWELL. Windows is an OEM junkyard that is why OS X has the EXPERIENCE MSFT only hotair about. OEMs RUIN Windows (after MS has raped it)

Re:I still don't get it

[Overly Critical Guy]

Wait. It's *Microsoft's* fault that the public library chose Microsoft's format for their downloadable media?

The public didn't choose it, it came bundled on the monopoly platform and was made uninstallable by Microsoft.

Can you give any good reason why a user isn't allowed to uninstall Windows Media Player if they want to? Or Messenger? They're just normal apps that can be removed with a simple registry flip.

Re:I still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Look here:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/ca ses/

Re:I still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, some people would argue they have something close to a monopoly in the mp3 player market.

Re:I still don't get it

[TenLow]

I dont remember being charged for windows media player (beyond paying for windows itself). I do however remember both quicktime and realplayer asking me for money repeatedly. When will there be a lawsuit against apple for bundling itunes with quicktime? Or Quicktime with OSX?

Re:I still don't get it

[Tom]

last time I checked every OS comes with a Media Player.

Hell, yes! Mine even comes with three different ones.

Oh... wait. Did I just destroy your argument there? :)

Re:I still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

So why has windows gone up in price, if all these new things are free?

Re:I still don't get it

[Plunky]

I think that the REAL motivation behind most of the lawsuits against MS that imply they abuse their "power" is sour grapes. Apple, Sun, IBM, even Be(!) all fucked up. They didn't do as good a job as MS in promoting their OSs and hardware. Especially Apple, who should've OWNED the entire market. They had ELEVEN YEARS (1984 - 1995) where their OS was superiour in every way to MSs. And they blew it. The same can be said for all the other OS vendors.

You missed the obvious point there. Yes, there were years when Apple OS was miles better than anything Microsoft had to offer (and many would say, that is still the case) but still the users didnt switch. Why not? Because even back then, Microsoft was a defacto monopoly on desktop computers and were using every trick in the book to keep it that way.

They got into that position by luck and marketing and have stayed the market leader not because they were better, but because they consistently used their position of power to deny others the chance to compete. To say that the other vendors blew it is not the whole story, by a long shot.

Re:I still don't get it

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Or was it that those other formats aren't as *good*? Because they aren't.

That's the entire point. Better formats don't exist because Microsoft has destroyed the market for them.

Re:I still don't get it

[avnistelrooij]

Can you give any good reason why a user isn't allowed to uninstall Windows Media Player if they want to? Or Messenger? They're just normal apps that can be removed with a simple registry flip.

It's (as far as I know) impossible to uninstall both messenger and Windows Media Player. You can ofcourse say that the player is not the default one, and you can kill messenger in the registry. But does your mother, your wife or your paperboy know how to do the same in the registry?

Re:I still don't get it

[Tim Colgate]

There is more background about Quicktime and Microsoft's actions against it here.

Section headings from the downloadable PDF include:

# Microsoft has Designed its Multimedia Product to Exclude Competitors and Extend its Monopoly Power

# Microsoft has Used its Monopoly Power and Anticompetitive Tactics to Try to Defeat Quicktime

# Microsoft Repeatedly Pressured Apple to Give Up Quicktime and Cede the Multimedia Playback Market to Microsoft

# to Thwart Quicktime, Microsoft Employed Punitive and Exclusionary Actions

# The Technical Problems and Misleading Error Messages Introduced by Microsoft Impair Quicktime's Performance and Impede Apple's Ability to Compete

# Original Equipment Manufacturers and Independent Software Vendors Fear Reprisal from Microsoft if their Business Conduct does not Conform to Microsoft's Wishes

There are far too many examples of monopoly-abusing business practices to quote them all, but here are a few from the main PDF:

From paragraph 77: "As recounted in the sworn deposition of Phil Schiller and Tim Schaaf, Microsoft repeatedly pressured Apple to abandon its business of providing software that enables users to view multimedia content on their computers. In return, Microsoft offered Apple the much smaller portion of the market for software tools used to create multimedia content. Microsoft made it clear that if Apple refused to relinquish the playback market, Microsoft would use its monopoly power to drive Apple out of the entire multimedia market." See subsequent paragraphs for how they went about this.

From paragraph 97: "... Microsoft took several steps to sabotage QuickTime. These included creating misleading error messages and introducing technical bypasses that deprived QuickTime of the opportunity to process certain types of multimedia files. In some instances users were left with the false impression that QuickTime was not functioning properly"

From paragraph 104: "Microsoft has used undocumented changes to the Windows registry to impair the ability of QuickTime to play numerous multimedia file types. In some cases, Internet Explorer 4.0 bypasses QuickTime and uses Microsoft software to play a multimedia file from a Web server. For many formats the Microsoft software is not able to process the file at all. In other cases, the Microsoft multimedia software will play the file with a severly degraded quality."

From paragraphs 108,109: "Microsoft has caused misleading error messages to appear for consumers who used QuickTime for various file formats. For example, ... Under certain conditions, an error dialog message would pop up when the user tried to gain access to types of media files, such as a QuickTime movie file, which were not associated with [Microsoft's] ActiveMovie. The Windows operating system would then ask the usser if he wished to reconfigure his system, suggesting that there was a problem that the consumer should fix although no actual error had occurred. If the user selected 'yes', Windows would reconfigure the system to select Microsoft's ActiveMovie instead of QuickTime -- even though QuickTime was capable of running the movie file. From the point forward, Internet Explorer would launch the ActiveMovie player whenever the consumer clicked on a file containing a QuickTime movie. This would cause problems for certain multimedi files because the ActiveMovie plater could only process a subset of the file formats that QuickTime could process. If a file could not be processed by ActiveMovie, an error message would appear telling the user that the player is not available -- even though QuickTime was capable of operating with the file. This could mislead consumers into believing that QuickTime was not operating properly.

From paragraphs 125,126: "At the conclusion of the meeting [between Apple and Compaq, to discuss Compaq bundling Apple's

Re:I still don't get it

[NoOneInParticular]

Media player market: both the actual player and the ability to play content (codecs). RM has its own format that it tries (tried) to license out, and now MS tries to get a monopoly on that market by (a) making its player standard, (b) making sure that most content will be published in the MS codec, and (c) dissallow other players (especially for other platforms) to make use of the MS codecs. No question marks, profits are at (d). MS owns all.

MS is smart and its plan is good. Many simple minds here at slashdot would see problems with making any of steps (a) to (c) illegal, while at the same time would cry murder when they can't view any content without licensing from MS. Every step is seemingly innocent, the end result is simply that MS has another monopoly: on playing and distributing audio and video no less.

The EU does see the plan and simply decided to stop MS at (a), while at the same time making it more difficult to implement (c) by mandating that MS opens up his protocols. It has never been about the player, always about the codecs: the player simply carries the payload.

Re:I still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

mrchaotica, IMO your post is clearly bogus dogma.

Whether or not the "monopoly" charge had any merit at the time, the fact is that todays market is SIGNIFICANTLY different. With Slashdot frequently posting about how Linux is about to take over the desktop, and Apple and Intel will merge, and Google set to topple the Micro$oft monarchy, I would think that we should be moving towards "whats good for the goose is good for the gander" when it comes to Microsoft. If fair is fair then lets play fair. Summoning other companies documents could have very relevant information in order to prove industry standard behavior.

Re:I still don't get it

[24-bit Voxel]

The cost of Windows Media Player is built into Windows. You are fooling yourself if you think MS developed .wma out of their own pocket. This cost gets added onto windows, that's why they have a huge cash reserve. You didn't explicitly pay for it, but you did pay for it. MS has put quite a lot of money into developing their own audio and video formats, and this stuff ain't free.

Quicktime asks you to upgrade... I guess it is pretty annoying. Personally I think being able to encode in .H264 for basically perfect web streams at resolutions of NTSC D1 is pretty damn nifty, but to each his own I suppose. To me it is worth the $30. To be fair, most shareware has similar notices, and is usually in the $20-30 price range. The thing that makes it truly annoying with Quicktime is that it is a very refined format and player so it seems out of place.

If you look really hard on their web page, there is a standalone install for Quicktime instead of the iTunes bundle. Just gotta actually try to find it, it's not in a good place for easy viewing so for us PC users it can be hard to find.

Lastly Macs are mainly used in the digital art and video field. It makes sense that quicktime comes with OSX, but the real issue here isn't that. You can uninstall quicktime from OSX, you cannot uninstall windows media player from windows.

Re:I still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems very sketchy from a legal standpoint. Blah blah blah..

Thanks for that searing legal insight.

Why can't you get it into your tiny little mind? Microsoft were found to be a monopoly in a court of law. No one gives a fuck what you think, because you're not an appeals judge. It doesn't matter how much you think it is "shaky" because, get this, it was ruled thus in a court of law and upheld in the appeal!. That doesn't happen just because the judges were having a bad day, for fucks sake.

Get over yourself. You're as bad a nut job flat earther or moon landing conspiracist.

Re:I still don't get it

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

You might argue that because iPods are constantly being mentioned. But other MP3 players do get sold. As opposed to non-Windows computers, where the percentage is absolutely minute. Also, since Apple tends to position themselves as a "premium" product and charge accordingly, there is likely to always be something else on the market that will likely be cheaper.

The thing that France is complaining about is iTunes, which certainly does lock out all others and could lead to monopoly.

Re:I still don't get it

[NoOneInParticular]

Yes the EU would, and they have (not for OS's but for pharmaceuticals and chemical industries). The French would however cry foul and murder. Hmm, much like the Americans are doing now.

Re:I still don't get it

[Saint Fnordius]

Right, and the point is that Microsoft also employs strong-arm tactics with developers and OEMs to exclude other media players from factory install or support. Microsoft would have made iTunes if it wasn't already popular. Now it's too late to pull the same stunt with it that they did with QuickTime. The horde of Windows-using iPod owners are now more likely to get a Mac Mini than switch to WMA.

Re:I still don't get it

[dnaumov]

"Microsoft are using their desktop OS monopoly to bundle a free media player and leverage the use of their proprietary media codecs and DRM, which will lock customers into MS toolchains. The EU can see this and wishes to stop it."

Errr.... Microsoft has already submitted to EU's demands and released a version of XP that doesn't include their media player, it's called Windows XP N and it has been shipped to EU counties in June 2005! The problem is no OEMs and no consumers actually WANT a Windows version without a media player and I believe it has sold less than 10000 copies thus far. I hate Microsoft and their practices as much as the next guy, but the reason for the current EU vs MS trial is simply to milk MS for money.

Re:I still don't get it

[Firehed]

When will there be a lawsuit against apple for bundling itunes with quicktime?

Bundling a media organzier with the core player? Doesn't sound that unreasonable to me... As it is, there are enough outright-bullshit lawsuits against Apple right now, and last I knew, Microsoft still hasn't done anything they were supposed to do as per the anti-trust case against them quite a few years back.

Re:I still don't get it

[ozmanjusri]

The problem is no OEMs and no consumers actually WANT a Windows version without a media player and I believe it has sold less than 10000 copies thus far.

No, the problem is that Microsoft has been allowed to offer Windows XP N for the same price as the standard version of Windows XP. That's why nobody's interested.

Re:I still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

"but the reason for the current EU vs MS trial is simply to milk MS for money"

That's right, someone must make the stupidest remark of the day...

Re:I still don't get it

[rahrens]

Hard to find?! I don't think so! Try going to Apple's home page and clicking the Quicktime tab at the top, and you'll see a big "Quicktime for Windows" download button at the top center of the page! See this link: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/win.html

Apple has always provided a stand alone installer for Quicktime, and unlike Windows, it can be simply deleted from your hard drive. (it doesn't take an uninstaller to do that!)

Windows, on the other hand, won't let you uninstall media player, won't let you uninstall IE ... which is why they have been proven to have used their monopoly power to force their versions of these things on their market, and overwhelmed their competitors.

Re:I still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you used a Windows machine in the last half decade, or are you still too worried about BSoD's?

Both Windows Media Player and Messenger are present under "Add/Remove Windows Components" in XP, along with scores of other useless crap (I'm looking at you, MSN Explorer).

Re:I still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Gates,
The accusations in the case of the US vs Microsoft, nothing has changed. Microsoft still dominates the market holding monopoly power and abusing it, thus not playing fair. If microsoft wants to play fair, it is in their hand.

Re:I still don't get it

[toddbloom7]

Nothing is stopping me from going and downloading Quicktime, iTunes, or a whole host of other media players - in fact that was the first thing I did when I first got my PC.

How exactly is that a monopoly?

Re:I still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

If you study just a small section of the corruption that is the EU then you will see there is much to this remark.

Re:I still don't get it

[ErroneousBee]

Windows, on the other hand, won't let you uninstall media player, won't let you uninstall IE

More to the point, it wont let OEMs uninstall it either. Dell, Sony, Lenovo, etc are not free to do business with Apple or Real without having parts of the Windows operating system stepping in and asserting Mediaplayer over the manufacturers preferred player when the user clicks on the wrong button.

The issue goes slightly than this, though, as Microsoft also apply other anti-competative pressures to stop OEMs from even contemplating installing iTunes on the non-WM version of Windows that the EU mandated.

Re:I still don't get it

[FireFury03]

Now I could be wrong, but last time I checked every OS comes with a Media Player.

Yeah, but unlike Windows, every other OS is not a monopoly! The rules about bundling are different for monopolies and non-monopolies, which is why it's illegal for Microsoft but legal for everyone else.

It's also worth remembering that the various Linux distros usually come with more than one media player, _and_ (this is the important bit) those media players aren't owned by the people who decided to distribute them, nor are the people who own the code required to pay vast amounts of money to have their software bundled with a distro.

I.e. the bundled software is chosen on merit rather than because:
1. It's owned by the distributor and they want to force it into more of the market
2. The owner is paying a shed load of money to have it distributed
3. It'll put someone else out of business

If MS made it as easy to run everyone else's media players as it is to run their own then this would be a non-issue.

I think Internet Explorer is a great example of why bundling in a monopoly situation is a very Bad Thing - by bundling it they effectively killed the competition and then they stopped developing it because there's no financial benefit in improving something that already has no competition. It's only now that IE has got so crap compared with other browsers that people are starting to migrate away, and MS has suddenly woken up and started doing development on IE since it now has competition again.

Re:I still don't get it

[FireFury03]

I fail to see how making Microsoft sell their OS piece by piece somehow decreases their ability to keep a monopoly.

Having a monopoly isn't a problem if you're a monopoly because your product is the best (and thus everyone wants it). The problem is that this isn't the case - MS use their position to take advantage of people's lazyness.

When you get your computer it has Internet Explorer there as standard - what would motivate anyone to bother to install an alternative? I mean, it's effort. So you've already locked out any competing browser that isn't *significantly* better. How else do you explain the fact that 90% of people use Internet Explorer despite the fact that it's a pile of crap compared to the competition?

For the end user, the lack of competition isn't an immediate problem - the end user sees the bundling as a Good Thing since it gives them something "for free" (included in the cost) and means they don't have to expend any effort. However, in the long run the lack of competition makes the vendor complacent - why bother investing in improving a piece of software that has no competition? And so in the end the bundled piece of software stagnates.

Re:I still don't get it

[Registered Coward v2]

In simplified terms, American antitrust, like much of our country's regulatory philosophy, aims to create a level playing field on which all companies, small or large, can compete; the focus is on protecting consumers through ensuring competitive markets.

Actually, much of our regulatory philosophy is to support existing companies and keep out new competitors by introducing barriers to entry; this neither protects consumers nor ensures competitive markets. Regulation keeps sugar prices high; limits the number of barbers (we license them yet no one has ever died from a bad haircut); and limits taxi medallions to keep the number of cabs down (ever wonder why someone will lend millions to a cabbie in NY to buy a medallion? Since NYC controls the number of medallions the collateral is rock solid even if the cabbie is a poor credit risk; VA limits who can pickup and drop off at IAD and DCA). I don't think paying higher prices makes a consumer better off.

Nor is a monopoly automatically bad even if they force others out of the market - if they keep prices below where a competitor can enter the market and make money then I spend less than I would in a more competitive marketplace - and I am better off since I can save or spend the difference.

In Europe, antitrust laws focus less on consumer protection than on competitor protection; the ability of companies to compete, regardless of whether their existence helps consumers, is what's important. From the European perspective, a near-monopoly market share is almost always a bad thing; furthermore, even if a big company is playing by the rules, it has an obligation to make sure it doesn't crowd out smaller competitors.

Which is why EU consumers are generally worse off than American - my European friends pay significantly more for everything, from clothes to cars than I do, and generally make less as well. Look at the row over Tax Free shopping. Germany, for example, used (not sure if they still do) to force stores to sell at the same price and limited operating hours - that helped the small stores but not the average German. No wonder Germans and other Europeans, when they have a choice, shop at WalMart, Corte Inglais, and other large stores that offer lower prices. If the EU ever really embraces competition over protecting entrenched interests they will spark a social and economic revolution (whether that is good or bad is open to debate); if they don't they will lose out to those who do.

Re:I still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people don't have Internet access.

There are also a lot of people who see their PC as an "appliance", and don't realize that you can download stuff and install it.

Between those two groups, you probably have 50% of the market.

Re:I still don't get it

[lordandmaker]

"Well, some people would argue they have something close to a monopoly in the mp3 player market." No more than Sellotape have something close to a monopoly in the sticky tape market.

Re:I still don't get it

[amliebsch]

Ummm...Did you actually click the link? Try it, and see how long it takes you to find the link for the download without iTunes. Whether or not Apple is a monopoly, this is the same kind of sleazy trickery that Real pulled, and it doesn't reflect favorably on Apple.

Re:I still don't get it

[faffod]

You might also argue that itunes and the ipod are natually linked products. One directly relates to the other. You pay a premium for the ipod and get better services (itunes) than if you buy a competing mp3 player. But itunes doesn't prevent you from buying another mp3 player. If appple was to place itunes so that it only ran on a mac, then you could argue that they are using their monopoly in one market (mp3 players) to increase their presence in an other market (desktops/laptops). The fact that apply may have enough market share to be considered a monopoly is not enough reason to be punished. The have to be using their monopoly to stop competition or leverage their way into a new market. As it was stated before, just being a monopoly is not bad - leveraging the monopoly is where you start running into trouble.

Re:I still don't get it

[amliebsch]

If Microsoft has a monopoly in the PC Desktop market (despite the plentiful availability of alternatives) then why doesn't Apple has a monopoly in the PMP market (despite the plentiful availability of alternatives)? The market share is essentially the same.

Re:I still don't get it

[amliebsch]

disenfranchising all Linux and Mac OS users.

So now Microsoft is preventing them from voting, too?

Re:I still don't get it

[Kadin2048]

You contradicted yourself. If there are other OSs, Windows is not monopolizing.

Not true. You don't need to control everything completely in order to be a monopoly, you just need to control enough of it to be able to distort the market and act anti-competitively. I'm sure there were other companies besides Standard Oil when it was broken up in the oil business (according to the Wikipedia article, it only controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales, which I'm willing to bet is on par or lower than Windows' penetration in some markets), but that doesn't mean that Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly or wasn't anti-competitive, or that breaking it up wasn't a good idea.

Companies are monopolies when they become big enough to be price makers (rather than price takers) and block entry of new firms into the marketplace. Microsoft rather clearly does both of those, although one might be able to successfully argue that their hold is slipping somewhat on the entry blockage (however it's interesting that the only real competitor to them that's come out recently is an OS that's given away for free, and it still has trouble competing).

Re:I still don't get it

[amliebsch]

So under this analogy, Microsoft has a monopoly not on operating systems, but specifically on Windows? They have a monopoly on their own product? By your own definition, OSX is a monopoly, regardless of the fact that other OSs exist because none of the alternatives have 100% (or even close to it) compatibility with OSX applications, making them not adequate substitutes for OSX. Brilliant!

Re:I still don't get it

[amliebsch]

buit it's as bundled into the kernel as Internet Exploder is.

Which is to say, not at all. HINT: There is a difference between kernel-mode execution and being compiled into the kernel.

Re:I still don't get it

[jZnat]

Well, on-line DRM'd music is a profitable market, and including WMP would promote their PlaysForSure DRM (which must be licensed for a fee of course). Other alternatives exist of course with Apple's iTunes Music Store being a primary vendor for competition.

Re:I still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

the reason everything in europe is more expensive than their north american counterparts has way more to do with taxes than with regulations. In almost every EU country you pay at least 10% tax on everything you buy and a lot of the time about 20%.

Re:I still don't get it

[PPGMD]

Windows Media Player is a value added application, adding or removing it doesn't increase or decrease the price of the Windows product, because you are paying for Windows itself. WMP is paid for by users purchasing Windows Server 2003 to stream the content, and users paying for the encoders to encode the content in a streaming format.

It's the same business model that Real Networks, and Apple use.

Also the OEMs and users have spoken, they don't want Windows XP N, user expect their computer to work out of the box to play some of the more mainstream media formats, and OEMs don't want to take the time to slipstream another media player in the box. The only people that really want this are seething at the teeth Microsoft haters (a very small percentage of computer users), and Microsoft's competitors (the biggest one, Real Networks, had their shot and lost).

This EU business is take two of the monopoly lawsuits, companies like Netscape and Real Networks put out crappy products, and lose to Microsoft, and then try to get an anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft. The users didn't jump ship because Microsoft put the product with their OS, they left because your product was utter crap (in the case of Netscape crashing every few minutes, and Real, their server product was even worse).

Re:I still don't get it

[swv3752]

Tyranny of the majority. Do Windows users constitute greater than 50% of the voting public? Are Mac and Linux users unaminous on thier opinion of political subjects? I doubt you could get just the people that show up at a LUG to agree on abortion. Voting is not an option here.

Re:I still don't get it

[mrchaotica]

The difference is that the entire market is centered around compatibility with Windows, so a monopoly on Windows compatibility is a monopoly on the market itself.

Besides, OS X is compatible with UNIX/X Windows apps out of the box (I admit I'd have a stronger argument if Apple had ever released Yellow Box for Windows, though).

Re:I still don't get it

[mrchaotica]

Disfranchisement
n.

The act of disfranchising, or the state of being disfranchised; deprivation of privileges of citizenship or of chartered immunities.

(source)

The word doesn't only refer to voting. For example, not having wheelchair access would disenfranchise disabled people from using the town center (example from OS X's dictionary widget), or using proprietary Microsoft technology would disenfranchise non-Windows users.

Re:I still don't get it

[FireFury03]

Because it's free?

Where can I download my free copy of Microsoft Media Player For Linux?

Re:I still don't get it

[amliebsch]

The difference is that the entire market is centered around compatibility with Windows

That's obviously not true, though, given the existence of rivals and plenty of software that runs across more than one platform - even MS Office! - and also the existence of lots of software that doesn't run on Windows.

Re:I still don't get it

[drinkypoo]

It is Microsoft's fault that I can't make use of the public library's downloadable media (which uses Windows Media DRM), despite the fact that it was paid for with my taxes!

Uh, no it is not.

The Library chose to utilize DRM. You can use WMV without DRM. You can also use other codecs instead of WMV. Hell, you can even use container formats other than AVI; the two that come to mind most readily are Matroska (MKV) and Ogg Media (OGM). And you can do all this on windows with Free/free software.

If they didn't use DRM, well, you need to update your media player (or get a real one) if you can't play WMV. If they did, it's not Microsoft's fault.

Re:I still don't get it

[drinkypoo]

You can download windows media player on the internet. The one that you download is newer than the one that comes with the OS. It only runs on Windows, so there's no need to get it anywhere other than Microsoft.

Re:I still don't get it

[Foofoobar]

Ok, then feel free to remove it and still have use of file explorer. I'd love to see this. Go ahead? I'll wait.

That and the fact that Microsoft says you are full of shit should be enough to keep your mouth closed for the next 5 minutes.

The fact that Microsoft told the Dept of Justice this, the fact that Bil Gates stated that it was a mistake to build these applications into the kernel and that Vista was going to have them removed from the kernel, the fact that you can send commands directly to the kernel via IE al proves you wrong.

There are people much smarter than you stating just how wrong what you just said is.

Re:I still don't get it

[mrchaotica]

It's Microsoft's fault that the library chose to use their DRM because they leveraged their Windows monopoly to give their DRM an unfair advantage over competing systems. In other words, the library likely chose it because it's supported by Windows without additional software, and that's the case because of illegal bundling.

Re:I still don't get it

[drinkypoo]

Allow me to clarify: They have no business using DRM on anything. Microsoft didn't force them to use DRM, and if they didn't use DRM, you'd be able to view the media. It may be Microsoft's fault they used WMV, but it's not their fault they used the DRM.

Re:I still don't get it

[mrchaotica]

Oh, well yeah -- but that's a totally different discussion.

Re:I still don't get it

[amliebsch]

You don't seem to understand that software can be a dependancy yet not be built into the kernel. Yes, you cannot (easily) remove the WMP libraries because the shell depends on them. That does not mean the libraries are built into the kernel! (And in fact, it runs completely in user mode AFAIK.) Just like you libc is not in the linux kernel, but you still need it to run almost any dynamically linked code!

Re:I still don't get it

[Cal Paterson]

That seems very sketchy from a legal standpoint.

Anti-trust isn't very sketchy at all; as far as I know, it's pretty much set in stone in the EU courts. There's a history of precedent, and the EU courts are in a pretty strong position. It's only by having a rock solid case that the EU courts are really able to nail a powerful company like MS.

That doesn't mean I think Anti-Trusts are a good thing; IMO they're a violation of freedom to do business as one pleases; one of the EU's core values. Microsoft are definatley being abusive of their monopoly; but that shouldn't be a crime. It would help the whole situation a lot more if government hadn't made laws respecting IP; then MS would have never gotten big, and the playing field would be level.

Re:I still don't get it

[tshak]

No, the problem is that Microsoft has been allowed to offer Windows XP N for the same price as the standard version of Windows XP. That's why nobody's interested.

So when people are offered a choice between one free media player and another, they choose Microsoft?

Re:I still don't get it

[tshak]

Yes, it is Microsoft's fault because they used illegal business practices to get that monopoly.

No they did not. Microsoft was accused for abusing an existing monopoly for strong arming OEMs and for bundling IE (the latter I think is competitor jealousy but the former is truely anti-competitive IMHO). Nevertheless, when Windows 95 hit stores there were people waiting in line for HOURS waiting to buy the product. Consumers chose Windows.

Re:I still don't get it

[Foofoobar]

and you seem not to understand that Microsoft and Bill Gates admitted to its basic functionallity being built into the kernel. You cannot entirely remove it! You can route around it, you can delete IE, you can delete all DLL's but it still exists! The engine is built into the kernel!

If Bill Gates says this, why would you doubt him?

Re:I still don't get it

[ubrkl]

Nice post man, I had no idea that MS had done these things in the media playback market, bastards.

Re:I still don't get it

[amliebsch]

and you seem not to understand that Microsoft and Bill Gates admitted to its basic functionallity being built into the kernel.

Then surely you can provide me with a link to a transcript showing such a statement, or at least a citation to a source. Because I don't believe he ever said that. He DID testify that IE is a critical dependency of explorer.exe (the Windows shell), and that removing it and all its libraries cripples the user interface. That is true, as you can demonstrate by setting deny all permissions on the applicable DLL files. That does not mean it is in the NT kernel! The same is true for WMP. Explorer.exe depends on the WMP libraries to do various tasks. But WMP is not in the NT kernel.

Re:I still don't get it

[Foofoobar]

You don't have to believe it if you don't want to. Still doesn't make it any less true.

As for the link...? It was about 2 weeks ago on Slashdot, Newsforge and several other tech sites. Do your own research if you want to be educated. Otherwise, feel free to remain ignorant. You seem to like it that way.

Re:I still don't get it

[Zonnald]

Why does microsoft have to provide a binary/source for linux?

Re:I still don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably didn't understand the article. MS only claimed that removing IE would make Windows unstable. It is possible to remove IE, and it has been done many years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer#Rem oval

Who's ignorant now, ignoramus?

Re:I still don't get it

[Foofoobar]

Uh huh. Sure. If you believe that in spite of all other evidence, there really is no convincing you. But thats ok cause I don't have to since I'm right.

Did I miss anything ?

[jfclavette]

Where's the new development ?

Re:Did I miss anything ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the new development ?

No, this happened weeks ago. The Slashdot "editors" are too busy palying games to worry about tech issues...

DAMMIT.

[StarKruzr]

So close.

Anyway. FTFA:

"Enforcing Microsoft's ... subpoena to Novell would circumvent and undermine the law of the European Community concerning how a litigant may obtain third-party documents," judge Wolf said in his 12-page decision.

Now that was a profoundly unexplained statement. Does anyone know why this is the case?

Re:DAMMIT.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your Semitic vagina coming home to roost, mein Freund.

Re:DAMMIT.

[Anonymous Coward]

The way I understand it, it is like follows:

Microsoft approaches an American court and says, in essence: Please force company so-and-so (in this case Novell, in another case it was Sun and Oracle) to render a number of documents to us. Reason? Well, we are involved in a lawsuit in Europe, and these documents have been used there in some context or other, but it was ruled that we had no right to look at them.

The court then replies: So what? European courts have their own mechanisms. The only basis for your demand is that you don't like the outcome of those mechanisms and want an American court to interfere with the European proceedings. It would improper for us to grant you that wish.

Re:DAMMIT.

[Plunky]

The court then replies: So what? European courts have their own mechanisms. The only basis for your demand is that you don't like the outcome of those mechanisms and want an American court to interfere with the European proceedings. It would improper for us to grant you that wish.

and I am left wondering if there isnt a little resentment (maybe not the right word) on the part of the judges in the USA - Microsoft were convicted there and seemingly paid off the politicians to get out of being punished. Thats a slap in the face for the judiciary and I can't see them going out of their way to assist Microsoft weasel out of a deserved punishment again even if it is in a different jurisdiction.

Re:DAMMIT.

[Keebler71]

so in Europe there aren't discovery rules like in the US?

Re:DAMMIT.

[Kadin2048]

I doubt many judges really care, in fact most of them are probably staring at Microsoft Windows while they're writing their opinion. I've known some judges (granted, not appellate level ones) and I don't think they have enough of a groupthink mentality to be collectively insulted by the outcome of one particular case or another, or hold some sort of general predisposed opinion on Microsoft one way or the other. Most of them, I think, are more interested in the intricacies law then in the nasty sausage-factory that is politics anyway.

Although, if I knew the judge wrote his opinions in Word, I'd have to wonder: how much does he hate Clippy, and want to make his master pay?

Re:DAMMIT.

[drinkypoo]

I doubt many judges really care, in fact most of them are probably staring at Microsoft Windows while they're writing their opinion.

<Machine crashes in the middle of writing the opinion>

Judge: "Hang the bastards!"

Why not subpoena in Europe?

[TubeSteak]

"Enforcing Microsoft's ... subpoena to Novell would circumvent and undermine the law of the European Community concerning how a litigant may obtain third-party documents,"

So why isn't MS going through the proper legal channels in Europe?

Even if their subpoena gets denied in Europe, they can later use the denial as a grounds for appeal (again, in Europe).

Re:Why not subpoena in Europe?

[utlemming]

Quite simple: Microsoft can't get what they want in Europe. In Europe there are laws that prevent Microsoft from seeing third-party documents. What Microsoft is hoping is that it can get the documents in the United States when the EU specifically prohbits it. What is even more interesting is that Microsoft actually thinks that some Federal Judge is stupid enough to grant the request. If Microsoft was to get the documents I would wonder if Microsoft would be in trouble with the EU. I know if I was on the commission, I would punish Microsoft for such back-handed ways.

Re:Why not subpoena in Europe?

[ClamIAm]

MS does not have as many friends in high places over in EU-land. In the US, with the innumerable lobbyists and backroom deals MS has had a part in, they have a much higher chance of getting off without any serious penalties.

Re:Why not subpoena in Europe?

[killjoe]

Why should they. They own many more politicians here in the US.

Look MS doesn't care about anything other then their money. They will do anything and everything to win. They have no ethics, morals or any guiding principles other then "make more money". That's it, end of story.

Re:Why not subpoena in Europe?

[dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv]

just like every other company in existance.

Re:Why not subpoena in Europe?

[rm69990]

Opera? Mozilla Corporation? Canonical? May not be big companies, but companies none the less.

Re:Why not subpoena in Europe?

[dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv]

yes, they all exist to make as much money as possible, this the the primary aim of any company.

they just arent as good at it (yet) as micosoft is (or was).

Re:Why not subpoena in Europe?

[rm69990]

Well let me quote your original post.

"They have no ethics, morals or any guiding principles other then "make more money"."

The bolded parts were the ones I was countering when I named those companies. You seem to equate the bolded parts with making more money in your last post, even though it is possible to make money without having the qualities of the bolded parts. Still following me here? I never meant that the companies I named don't want to make money, I'm saying that they do have ethics, morals and guiding principals, while continuing to make money. I'm not confusing you, am I?

Re:Why not subpoena in Europe?

[dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv]

i'm saying that companies dont have ethics or morals, their primary function is to maximise profits.

if a company believes following certain ethical or moral guidelines is the best way to maximise profits, thats what they'll do, but they'll be doing it in order to maximise profits, not to be moral or ethical just for the sake of it.

Re:Why not subpoena in Europe?

[Keeper]

The EC claims that the documents are not relevent to Microsoft's defense, so they don't need to be turned over. Ie: the prosecutor is deciding what evidence the defendent has available for it's defense.

I do believe that there is additional legal action occuring in Europe challenging that assertion, but frankly by the time that is settled the documents requested will no longer be needed (ie: the case will be closed).

Re:Why not subpoena in Europe?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Ethics is big right now in MBA programs everywhere (that wish to keep their accreditation). Otherwise, the easiest way to profit is just kill the person next to you and take what he has. Oh wait. That is illegal, immoral, and unethical. Every company has a culture, and within this culture are norms of behavior that define what is "OK" to do. Ignore your companies cultural norms at your own risk. These norms make up an ethical system for that company. Sometimes this works, other times you get Enron or Microsoft.

Re:Why not subpoena in Europe?

[killjoe]

Mozilla corporation?

Anyway not all companies are as sleazy as MS are they now? I mean there are people with actual morals who run corporations arent there?

I get your point though. Most corporations are sociopathic in nature. If they were humans they would be serial killers. Corporations feel no empathy for the suffering of others and can not control their impulses just like serial killers.

Re:Why not subpoena in Europe?

[Haeleth]

The key thing here, for me, is that American judges are blocking the attempts of an American corporation to dodge round a foreign law.

There's a popular belief in Europe, particularly in anti-American circles, that the US refuses to acknowledge that any non-US law could ever apply to a US-based entity. These rulings are very welcome, and should go a long way towards counterbalancing the negative press that America has received over issues like the ICC.

Of course, even as I write this, there will no doubt be some nationalist congressman preparing a diatribe against these "activist judges" who are traitors to the national interest...

Re:Why not subpoena in Europe?

[Kadin2048]

Actually, while I would normally agree with you about the majority of corporations in existence, this is not necessarily true when dealing with non-profit corporations.

The non-profit corporation is a strange creature; it's by definition a legal entity which cannot have as its primary goal "making money," although it's possible to get personally wealthy by running one or working for one.

I tend to view them with a certain amount of suspicion and skepticism, because while a for-profit corporation has a clear (profit) motive and thus will act predictably under various circumstances, non-profit ones have the potential to be loose cannons. You're really stuck basically trusting their mission statement, until they have some sort of track record.

That said, most of the Free Software-related non-profit corporations have so far proved to be reasonably true to their missions, and their actions have dictated that their primary aim is not to make money (if they had, their actions would have been substantially different). Furthermore, a person looking to make money doesn't incorporate as a nonprofit, because it makes it difficult legally to raise capital and turn profits back to shareholders.

Re:Why not subpoena in Europe?

[mpe]

The key thing here, for me, is that American judges are blocking the attempts of an American corporation to dodge round a foreign law.
There's a popular belief in Europe, particularly in anti-American circles, that the US refuses to acknowledge that any non-US law could ever apply to a US-based entity.

It's not clear if this is a case of US courts recognising "foreign courts" or rejecting Microsoft's requests because they have no standing to make them under US law...

Re:Why not subpoena in Europe?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be embarassed to be so delusioned by anti-Microsoft rhetoric to honestly make any sort of comparison between Enron and Microsoft.

Re:Why not subpoena in Europe?

[rm69990]

Mozilla Corporation : http://www.mozilla.com/about/

Anyways, what about private corporations, such as the one my parents owned? You can't tell me there isn't a single corporation in the entire world that isn't run ethically, because I can use that not so well known one as an example.

Anyways, this really is a completely pointless argument we are all having. I'm going to quit posting now.

Re:Why not subpoena in Europe?

[killjoe]

I said "most" not all. MS is an especially sleazy, immoral, and evil corporations. Other are less evil, some are not evil at all.

Fines for Microsoft? Hah!

[Stiletto]

"I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in...sixty years."

Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah!

[paitre]

It's that much per day. And then some.

Not even microsoft is going to be able to bleed millions of dollers PER DAY.
For starters, their investors will not stand for it. YOu wanna ses a shareholder revolt? If MS keeps this shit up, expect to see one.

Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah!

[killjoe]

At a million dollars per year in sixy years MS will lose 60 million dollars. That's nothing. Bill Gates couch has more money between the cushions.

If they lost a million dollars a year they could go for 600 years. Remember they have a FuckTon (TM) amount of money.

Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Citizen Kane. A true classic.

Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah!

[calculadoru]

I never thought I'd live to see the day when Citizen Kane is quoted on Slashdot, but there it was, and modded up, too.

There might be hope after all.

Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah!

[HappyEngineer]

[blockquote]Not even microsoft is going to be able to bleed millions of dollers PER DAY.[/blockquote]

Yes they can.

Investors obviously wouldn't like it, but according to that link, microsoft makes 10 million in profit (40 million in revenue) every single day.

Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah!

[l0ungeb0y]

Same here, thus I decided to read the replies to see if anyone else got it.
Glad to know I'm not the only one.

Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If they lost a million dollars a year they could go for 600 years. Remember they have a FuckTon (TM) amount of money.

No, they could go one forever. A million/day is $3.6B/year - roughly 5-10% of their ready cash. This could put a serious cramp in their liquidity.

Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah!

[moviemaker]

Add another to the head count.

Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember they have a FuckTon (TM) amount of money.

Is that an American FuckTon or a Metric FuckTon?

Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah!

[yndrd1984]

Rosebud! :-)

Great movie.

Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

1 mil a day is 365 mil/year not 3.6 bil.

Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

You just saved us two long boobless hours.

Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah!

[PGC]

Here, have a cookie...

Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah!

[amliebsch]

No, they could go one forever. A million/day is $3.6B/year

You're using the "new math," aren't you?

Re:Fines for Microsoft? Hah!

[flynns]

Well, since this case is in Europe, I'd assume it's a metric fucktonne.

If only

[alucinor]

If only then the EU could funnel that money right back into local software companies and the open source infrastructure they base their products on. Oh wait, they will -- after beaucracy fees, of course! And oh wait again ... a lot of those local software companies also base their products on Microsoft's infrastructure ... blarg, so complex!

It has to be important...

[Cheapy]

When the BBC runs it like this.

Especially with that pic of Bill.

The EU justice system

[BadAnalogyGuy]

The EU justice system does not allow a defendant the ability to defend themselves against anonymous charges and secret evidence. If you are innocent, you must prove your innocence. Microsoft finds itself backed into a corner in which they are bombarded by name-less competitors and the evidence against them is kept secret from them.

If you were on trial, would you want the assumption of innocence? You would most likely want to be able to question your accuser. You would also want a chance to refute evidence. You'd at least want a chance to see what evidence was being brought against you.

Under the EU system of justice, none of those rights are accorded to the defendant. Microsoft may be the world's worst company, but the EU's courts are not giving them a fair chance. Microsoft is simply doing what it must to protect itself legally. If it gets shut down by a judge, that's unfortunate and they'll have to do without those documents, but under a sane legal system, they'd already have those documents.

Re:The EU justice system

[baywulf]

Whether the EU system of justice is fair or not, those are the tradeoffs of becoming a multinational corporation. Corporations have no loyalty to any particular country... they jump around mixing and matching whatever tax systems or legal obligations suit them the best. So why should we Americans give a damm what Microsoft's legal troubles are in the EU system.

Re:The EU justice system

[eclectro]

If you were on trial, would you want the assumption of innocence?

Yes, but in Microsoft's case you can make the assumption of guilty and be right.

Re:The EU justice system

[alphasubzero949]

So why should we Americans give a damm what Microsoft's legal troubles are in the EU system.

For the same reasons we should be giving a damn about Microsoft in the first place. They're still a shady monopoly who got away with murder in the U.S. If MS can bully around the EU legal system, they have carte blanche to pretty much do whatever they damn well please.

Re:The EU justice system

[kylef]

Whether the EU system of justice is fair or not, those are the tradeoffs of becoming a multinational corporation.

Wait, so now a fair justice system is a tradeoff and not an expectation we place on any governmental organization?

So why should we Americans give a damm what Microsoft's legal troubles are in the EU system.

For that matter, why should we Americans give a damn about any injustice happening elsewhere in the world? Why don't we just seal up our borders and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist?

Re:The EU justice system

[utlemming]

Not a fair chance? By what standards? By the American constructs of justice, they might have been given the short end of the stick. But according to European constructs, they may have been given a fair shake. When Microsoft entered European markets, they accepted the implications of it. When you go over to another country you implicitly accept their constructs of justice and law. That is why the State Department won't step in and save you when screw up in another country. Arguing and asking that Microsoft be given a fair chance by American definitions is just like asking that someone who is in another country recieve an American trial even though the crime is committed in another country.

The real issue here is that American's view other constructs of justice and social laws as being backwards and wrong. Who is to say that guilty until proven innocent is anymore right or wrong than innocent until proven innocent. I don't agree with the European method, but I am an American.

It is extremely myopic to argue that Microsoft, albeit an American company should be allowed to operate in Europe and at the same time only have to use American laws. If Microsoft is Europe and selling in Europe then Microsoft should be subject to the laws of that nation, regardless of whether or not Americans consider those laws to be just. It is not up to Microsoft to change those laws, and trying to use backhanded methods to compell what they want is not right.

If the constructs of justice are so maligent and repugnant, than why don't the Europeans change them? If Microsoft doesn't like the laws, then Microsoft can withdraw. No one is holding Microsoft in Europe; they are choosing to stay in Europe. And when their behavior is not to the liking of the European Union, it is not the place of an American to say that the EU is not treating them fairly, especially when most Americans, including myself, do not understand how Europe handles such issues. The world does not revolve around America, and American's need to respect the laws of another country, even when we percieve them to be unfair by our standards.

Now I realize that everyone is going to flame me about China, Iran and other countries that violate human rights. But this post is not referring to human rights. That is a whole different story. This is just about the social constructs of justice.

Re:The EU justice system

[suv4x4]

So why should we Americans give a damm what Microsoft's legal troubles are in the EU

You torched his ass dude, you torched his ass! Over here's America, we don't give a damn what that EU city is about and where the Europe island is. Who cares!

Take that terrorists!

Re:The EU justice system

[I'm Don Giovanni]

The EU justice system does not allow a defendant the ability to defend themselves against anonymous charges and secret evidence. If you are innocent, you must prove your innocence. Microsoft finds itself backed into a corner in which they are bombarded by name-less competitors and the evidence against them is kept secret from them.

Yep; Kafka knew of which he wrote.

But actually, I've read that while the European Commission does not provide due process in its rulings, one can appeal those rulings to a real court and get a real trial rather than edicts. (But I don't know how fair even that appeal trial is.)

Re:The EU justice system

[killjoe]

If by "sane legal system" you are refering to the so called US justice system I refer you to the IBM v SCO case.

Re:The EU justice system

[Antony T Curtis]

IANAL...

But as far as I know, in a trial, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
When it comes to an appeal, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

It is the defendant's duty in an appeal to prove that the findings of fact and final judgement in the trial are wrong.

For Microsoft, the trial is already over. They have been found guilty. This is an appeal, they have to either subject themselves to remedies or prove their innocence.

Re:The EU justice system

[Anonymous Coward]

All I can say is : Guantanamo.

If you were on trial, would you like to know what the charges were? Would you prefer the privilege of being presumed innocent? Would you like access to legal representation?

Americans no longer have the right to bitch about human rights or democracy (if they ever did); the sheer, galling hipocracy will merely encourage the rest of the world to hate them more.

Also, as other posters have mentioned, US law is utterly irrelevant outside of US juridiction. You can't pick and choose laws when it suits you, as has been done at Guantanamo.

Re:The EU justice system

[trewornan]

Why don't we just seal up our borders and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist?

The rest of the world would be delighted if the US did exactly that.

Re:The EU justice system

[mrchaotica]

For that matter, why should we Americans give a damn about any injustice happening elsewhere in the world? Why don't we just seal up our borders and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist?

Because some of us are such bigoted dumbasses that we can't resist shoving our fat asses where they don't belong, maybe?

Re:The EU justice system

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool and that would also probably avert WWIII.

Re:The EU justice system

[Anonymous Coward]

> All I can say is : Guantanamo.
> If you were on trial, would you like to know what the charges were?
> Would you prefer the privilege of being presumed innocent?
> Would you like access to legal representation?

Yes! I do want my legal rights.

> Americans no longer have the right to bitch about human rights or democracy

The hypocracy of others is no excuse for one's own wrongdoing. Ever.

The American legal system added provisions against anonymous witnesses and secret evidence simply because they were unfair. Gitmo merely proves that doing end runs around those protections is unjust.

To say that no one "has the right to complain" is precisely why America has this problem right now--there simply aren't enough people working to change these problems. The solution to that is not to get into some pissing contest about who is better than whom, but to restore the lost legal protections.

Re:The EU justice system

[Unlikely_Hero]

*deliberately reminding people of this*
If by sane justice system you mean the US Courts I ask that you please google and read up on "Ruby Ridge" and its resolution.

Yes yes mod me troll/flamebait whatever,
too many people I know never have heard of ruby ridge
and that means a hell of a lot more than moderator points

Re:The EU justice system

[shrik3]

Why don't we just seal up our borders and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist?

Because your SUVs would run out of gas.

Re:The EU justice system

[seweso]

Why don't we just seal up our borders and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist?

Because you want to keep fucking the rest of the world I guess. You seem to like it, and we seem to give you money for it.

Re:The EU justice system

[10Ghz]

The real issue here is that American's view other constructs of justice and social laws as being backwards and wrong. Who is to say that guilty until proven innocent is anymore right or wrong than innocent until proven innocent. I don't agree with the European method, but I am an American.

In Europe, person is also considered innocent until proven quilty. I really fail to see where this notion that in Europe you are quilty until proven innocent comes from. Fox News?

Each system has it's drawbacks. To us in Europe, the US legal-system doesn't seem that great either. It seems that anyone can sue anyone for some bogus reasons, and the one with better lawyers wins. And even though the lawsuit is totally bogus, it just keep on going. SCO vs. IBM has been going on for THREE YEARS. And to this date, SCO has not presented one shred of evidence to back up their claims. And the case is still going strong. What's wrong with this picture?

Re:The EU justice system

[Overly Critical Guy]

Citizen rights don't apply to a captured combatant, as stated by all international conventions on the matter.

Don't want to be held without knowing your charges and presumed innocent? Maybe next time try not picking up a gun and getting caught in combat.

Americans no longer have the right to bitch about human rights or democracy (if they ever did); the sheer, galling hipocracy will merely encourage the rest of the world to hate them more.

The same with the U.N., whose oil-for-food scandal meant they were in bed with an Iraqi dictator while criticizing the "human rights" behavior of the U.S.

the sheer, galling hipocracy will merely encourage the rest of the world to hate them more.

Most of them hate America out of jealousy and spite.

Re:The EU justice system

[Anonymous Coward]

This is partially a bit of pedantry I guess, sorry for that, but the EU is still made up of lots of individual nations (and, given the rejection of the EU constitution, may always be). Although the EU provides a certain unification of legal systems throughout the member nations, at the nation level there are still major differences. At the EU level, it has to be remembered that, like so many things which are present on a Europe-wide level, the EU justice-system is a compromise; and compromises have a tendency to have glaring imperfections. But, in the EU, a blatant disregard of the norms of any member state (if the member-state lives up to some, exceedingly poorly-defined, woolly "level") isn't possible... Remember that when anyone who criticises the secretive nature of some proceedings- it's not necessarily due to any malevolent intent. This is more of an agreement with the above post then...

Re:The EU justice system

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of them hate America out of jealousy and spite.

Most of them hate the US because of what its done, because of its crimes and because of its arrogance. Most of them are looking for the day when the US crumbles and gains some humility.

They've no real problem with Canada.

Re:The EU justice system

[kirk__243]

Most of them hate America out of jealousy and spite.

Some, yes. But others hate America for the arrogant and ignorant attitude just displayed.

Re:The EU justice system

[Tom]

Why don't we just seal up our borders and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist?

Because you'd be back in the stone age within a decade. The US is the largest importing nation on the globe. 90% of what you can buy at your local Walmart was not made in the US. Not to mention, of course, that you'd all be crying and whining three days after your oil reserves run out.

Re:The EU justice system

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey fool, most people at Gitmo were civilians rounded up because they had bushy beards, and none of them had guns either.

You idiots in the Axis of Good mighr like to explain how arresting some poor foreign chap in his home while he was watching TV equates to a prisoner of war and enemy combatant.

Go back to playing your banjo.

Re:The EU justice system

[Aranth Brainfire]

Except Canada.

Re:The EU justice system

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Don't you have to declare war to have enemy combatantants?

Re:The EU justice system

[ma11achy]

Being Irish, and an EU citizen, I did a little digging, as I don't remember any court cases recently where accused had to "prove their innocence"

Article 6.2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (Council of Europe) states:

"Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."

You can read the entire convention here

Re:The EU justice system

[civilizedINTENSITY]

They've no real problem with Canada, and note that Canada kicks our ass when it comes to the UN Human Development Index (HDI), a comparative measure of poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, childbirth, and other factors for countries worldwide.

1. Norway
2. Iceland
3. Australia
4. Luxembourg
5. Canada
6. Sweden
7. Switzerland
8. Ireland
9. Belgium
10. United States

If it was really about "jealousy and spite", then Canada would be hated more than the USA.

Re:The EU justice system

[guet]

Maybe next time try not picking up a gun and getting caught in combat.

Many of these people were not in combat or anywhere near it. For example the UK citizens who were snatched in Pakistan or others rounded up by the Northern Alliance. They were suspects, not proven combatants, but they were tortured all the same.

were in bed with an Iraqi dictator while criticizing the "human rights" behavior

Are you purposely wallowing in hypocrisy or do you just not know that the US (+ UK + many others) supplied arms and backed Saddam during one of the most bloody wars of the 80's (Iran/Iraq war), and only turned against him at the end of it when his delusions of grandeur became an irritant? Millions died in that little sideshow of the Great Game. Seen the photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam on a trade mission? The very same Rumsfeld who architected this bungled attempt at an occupation. The same one who will lead you to invade Iran too, with disastrous results.

I suppose you hate the French as well as the UN - I'm surprised and dissapointed at all the narrow ignorance I read on predominantly American sites like this one. The UN is corrupt, and needs to be fixed, however the likes of John Bolton aren't going to do it, and this kind of posturing about UN corruption isn't going to help either - the current US administration is riddled with corruption, are you complaining as vociferously about that?

Most of them hate America out of jealousy and spite.

I'd be willing to bet you know no-one who hates America. You are in no position to judge their motives; in order to understand you'd have to be a little more frank with yourself and accept that an empire has its costs, amongst them the enmity of those you have subjugated.

Re:The EU justice system

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Well if you want to accuse them of "holding a gun", do so. Don't hold them without accusing them. Currently, there is no way to ascertain anything about these people. Where they holding a gun? Are they the niece or nephew of someone Bush distains? Is it just because we had to hurt someone because we were hurt? If we went to trial the rule of law would establish facts and outcomes. Without the rule of law, God alone knows who these detainees are, what they've done, or what they could be accused of...

Re:The EU justice system

[civilizedINTENSITY]

This is offtopic, but interesting. Are there legal ramifications to not declaring war? We seem to have stopped having wars, now we just kill. Why? There must be some sort of advantage, but I can't see it.

Re:The EU justice system

[LordEvan]

Why don't we just seal up our borders and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist?

We tried that before. Know what it got us? WWII. Try Googling the term 'isolationism' sometime...

Re:The EU justice system

[Strudelkugel]

The last time something like that happened, a global depression occurred, followed by WWII.

What's more interesting about your comment, though, is that it was moderated +5 insightful.

BTW, the EU proceedings are a shakedown against Microsoft, pure and simple. Given how European governments are busy ruining their own economies, they have to get money from somewhere, and pretend to be doing something while they are at it, unfortunately.

Re:The EU justice system

[boule75]

IANAL as you would say on your side of the Atlantic, but I agree with the Irish poster that has answered too. Here -France- an appeal is another trial, with other judges, possibly other investigators, and certainly other investigations can be requested by both parties to the case. Most of the time, an appeal is "suspensive" (dunno if the word is right in English): the first rulling is not enforced. In short, the defendant is still considered inocent in the appeal court, until proven guilty a second time. This does not mean that he will not be kept in jail if he/she is considered dangerous, but, precisely, the same does apply for the first trial.

Re:The EU justice system

[nickco3]

Who is to say that guilty until proven innocent is anymore right or wrong than innocent until proven innocent. I don't agree with the European method, but I am an American.

The American Bill of Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights are very similar both drawing heavily from Anglo-Saxon traditions of justice and individual liberty. Article 6 of the ECHR sets the standards for a fair trial and includes everything you would expect including the presumption of innocence.

The treatment of corporations is where the two systems differ. In the US corporations are protected, but the European system only applies to real humans.

Re:The EU justice system

[Conor Turton]

Errr stupid American fuckwit...

THE CHARGES ARE BEING BROUGHT BY THE EU COMMISSION. They weren't brought about by any of the companies Microsoft is trying to subpoena. Why would Microsoft needs those documents? It's not those companies on trial. It's not those companies that make interoperability with their respective OSes impossible. Microsoft solely has to defend why it isn't in a monopolising position for the specific reasons laid out against it.

Re:The EU justice system

[Luctius]

>Citizen rights don't apply to a captured combatant, as stated by all international conventions on the matter.

Either they are protected by the normal laws of every citizen, or they are prisoners of war and have those rights. There is not an area in between where they have conveniently no rights at all.

>Don't want to be held without knowing your charges and presumed innocent? Maybe next time try not picking up a gun and getting caught in >combat.

How are you sure they had a gun? Did they have a fair trial?

Re:The EU justice system

[orcrist]

Don't want to be held without knowing your charges and presumed innocent? Maybe next time try not picking up a gun and getting caught in combat.

Or for that matter don't ever travel to a country where there were any people doing that, like José Padilla, a U.S. Citizen arrested on U.S. soil, not holding a gun of any kind.

From the Wiki article:
He was arrested in Chicago on 8 May 2002 and remains in detention in a military prison. For the first three years of his detention he was held without charge and without access to his lawyer or family. He is now charged that he "conspired to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas".

Now, I'm sure you would argue that he's got a suspicious past, but it certainly doesn't rise to the level of "being caught on the field of combat with a weapon" or somesuch.

-chris

Re:The EU justice system

[fbjon]

They're cool, they can come to Europe. Pick up Greenland on your way too, that's a cool place as well.

Re:The EU justice system

[Gorshkov]

I find it endlessly fascinating that as soon as something differs from how it's done int he USA, it's automatically inferiour.

No, the EU trial system isn't the same as it is in the USA

No, defendants don't have the same rights they do in the USA

They have different rights, because in Europe (or anywhere else other than the USA), people have different ideas about what is fair, what is right, and how best achieve the balance between them all.

"Not Fair!" doesn't really apply. It's a different system, with different rules, that suites the sensibilities and ideals of the people it serves - just as yours serves you.

Re:The EU justice system

[Anonymous Coward]

'cept us Indians!

Re:The EU justice system

[PGC]

Everyone hates the french ! ^_^ Damn frogs... "Most of them hate America out of jealousy and spite." I'm Dutch, I really dislike America (the american law and hypocricy that is ... nothing related to their middle eastern affairs) ...your really think that a Dutch person would have anything to be envious about , or jealous , when he thinks about the US?

Re:The EU justice system

[benneja1]

That would have to be the most retarded statement I have ever heard. Although it would be fun to see the rest of the world wither away and die w/o US support. How would China's economy ever survive not to mention Taiwan and South Korea, they would no longer exist and Iran would nuke Israel. Mexicans would have nowhere to work, India would lose all US outsourcing and a large portion of the internet would vanish. The rest of the world would NOT be delighted if the US pretended they did not exist...
As for Microsoft, just stop buying their products if you're unhappy with getting an OS that works out of the box.
Don't get me wrong, I have a lab full of UNIX & Linux systems, Linux clusters and Macs, but if my end users had to work off a Linux box my phone would never stop ringing. When it comes to work, people like to sit down in front of a system that works with out spending days and days looking for decent drivers.

Re:The EU justice system

[Danuvius]

That would have to be the most retarded statement I have ever heard. Although it would be fun to see the rest of the world wither away and die w/o US support. How would China's economy ever survive not to mention Taiwan and South Korea, they would no longer exist and Iran would nuke Israel. Mexicans would have nowhere to work, India would lose all US outsourcing and a large portion of the internet would vanish. The rest of the world would NOT be delighted if the US pretended they did not exist...

You are wrong. We would be delighted. All those sacrafices you mention (some of which are utter nonsense) would be WELL WORTH IT!

Re:The EU justice system

[Anonymous Coward]

Guantanamo? I thought we were talking about media players...

Is it time to bring up Hitler yet?

Sheesh.

Re:The EU justice system

[LynnwoodRooster]

Either they are protected by the normal laws of every citizen, or they are prisoners of war and have those rights. There is not an area in between where they have conveniently no rights at all.

Yes, there is an in-between area... And they are currently in it.

By what reasoning do you consider them protected by the normal laws of every citizen? They are not citizens, and are not on US soil. How do they qualify to the rights under our Constitution?

By what reasoning would you classify them as combatants, and thus eligible for prisoner of war status? They wore no uniforms, fought on the side of no country.

So, how do we classify them? They don't fit either classification - not citizens (or even legal aliens) and not war combatants per the Geneva convention. They're where they belong - in between.

Re:The EU justice system

[xouumalperxe]

Wait, so now a fair justice system is a tradeoff and not an expectation we place on any governmental organization?

No, no. From what I understood of what he is saying, the point was that, independently of the EU's judicial system being any good, a multinational corp HAS to deal with the systems in place in each country they step into. The tradeoff here is "I get another slice of the world market, but I have to make my behaviour conform to yet another legal system".

Re:The EU justice system

[Darth]

But as far as I know, in a trial, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
When it comes to an appeal, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent.


I am not a lawyer either, but I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. (in the U.S. at least)

In a criminal trial, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
In a civil trial, the burden of proof is a preponderence of the evidence. (i.e. you dont have to be proven guilty, just proven that is't pretty likely)

An appeal does not presume guilt or innocence and doesnt prove guilt or innocence. In an appeal, the defendant is claiming that there was some failure of the process that makes the first trial unreliable as the basis for a decision. If you are successful in an appeal, it doesn't mean you are innocent. It means that first trial is voided and you can be retried (with possible stipulations from the appeals court intended to avoid making the same failure again).

In the E.U., I imagine an appeal is used in a similar way.


It is the defendant's duty in an appeal to prove that the findings of fact and final judgement in the trial are wrong.


it's the defendant's job to prove the process was flawed in a way that voids the trial. It doesnt necessarily mean the facts are wrong. It could mean evidence was unfairly excluded or that evidence wasn't properly disclosed, or the judge made a bad ruling, or a juror violated their responsibilities in a way that tainted the jury, or any number of other things.

In the U.S. antitrust case, the appeals court used the judge's behaviour to overturn the judgement. They upheld the findings of fact, but accepted the argument that his statements demonstrated a bias that made him unfit to determine Microsoft's punishment.

Re:The EU justice system

[Luctius]

>By what reasoning do you consider them protected by the normal laws of every citizen? They are not citizens, and are not on US soil. How >do they qualify to the rights under our Constitution?

They were not captured on US soil maybe, but do you deny that Guantanamo Bay is not US siol? If so, why is there an US military base there, I don't think Cuba asked the US to setup a base there.

>By what reasoning would you classify them as combatants, and thus eligible for prisoner of war status? They wore no uniforms, fought on >the side of no country.

If they fought for no country and had no uniform, the normal law of the country they fought in should apply to them.
The country they fought in should trail them.
The country they fought in should keep them prisoner, if they are indeed convicted.

>So, how do we classify them? They don't fit either classification - not citizens (or even legal aliens) and not war combatants per the >Geneva convention. They're where they belong - in between.

Indeed, they are captured by a nation who has no right what so ever to keep them. They are not where they belong, because they should either be free, or be on trial in the nation they fought in.

By what right has the US captured them?
By what right does the US keep them?

What I thought of when seeing that pic

[BadAnalogyGuy]

skeet skeet skeet

unprecedented evile's stock markup FraUD henchmen

[Anonymous Coward]

still having their way with US?

what a surprise? evile never sleeps, it's always afraid.

like corn passing through a bird's butt?

all they want is... everything. at what cost to US? not a pretty picture at all. quite infactdead from our viewpoint.

for many of US, the only way out is up.

don't forget, for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.

'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.

some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.

concern about the course of events that will occur should the corepirate nazi life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.

'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Re:unprecedented evile's stock markup FraUD henchm

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops! Looks like you've been skipping your medications again. If you take them now, you may be rational by this time tomorrow. Or maybe not.

Monopolists

[Seriously, who]

Seriously, who in their right mind would expect Microsoft to have any respect for the law by now, after everything they've done in the past? Sadly, this is just another example of Microsoft demonstrating their monopolistic powers, and it isn't very surprising.

Apr. 18:Prostitute Schedule @MBOT in San Francisco

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Las Vegas, San Francisco offers prostitution as a tourist attraction. If you want to buy some prostitution services (i.e., hand job, blow job, or full sexual intercourse), you need to merely walk through the doors of the Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theater (MBOT), located at 895 O'Farrell Street, San Francisco, California.

Check out the prostitute schedule for April 18, 2006 at the MBOT.

The prostitute schedule is updated daily.

Unlike Las Vegas, San Francisco does not regulate prostitution. So, the MBOT heartily welcomes everyone -- including HIV-positive customers.

Choose your crappy system

[Anonymous Coward]

American courts convicted Microsoft of some fairly serious crimes. George W. and his cronies gave them a 'Get out of jail free' card.

Justice is a rare commodity anywhere in the world. Bah Humbug.

:-D

[Anonymous Coward]

I really like this idea. It's useful in all stories, and it doesn't limit you from generating karma. Hmm...

Old News?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to post news that's been on the BBC all fucking day.

No news is good news

[babbling]

Be happy. There's only one way this whole thing is going to end, and that's with the EU dropping or getting soft about the action against Microsoft. Some might say I'm being cynical, but does anyone seriously expect Microsoft to ever comply? The current fines don't seem to be enough, since Microsoft have chosen to just keep pretending they're fixing the problems instead of actually doing anything.

It might be next month, or it might be years from now, but the EU will eventually cave and give in to Microsoft.

Re:No news is good news

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Why? Why not just escalate the fines until MS notices? Or jail a few people for (the EU version of) contempt of court?

Re:No news is good news

[Carewolf]

You can't jail a company, and the fines are already pretty big.

I can only assume that Microsoft is gambling that it can get out of the fines when they are so high that the US intervenes.

Re:No news is good news

[civilizedINTENSITY]

You can't jail a company, but you can jail the CEO, CFO, CIO, etc...

Displace and distend

[spisska]

It's refreshing to see that Microsoft's legal strategy of 'displace and distend' is finally running out of gas. Stretching out and distorting legal proceedings through any and all means is exactly how they ended up convicted of but unpunished for abusing a monopoly position in the US. Europe, thankfully, is no such pushover.

It's also refreshing to see that US states (CA and MA) acknowledge that, not only do their state laws not apply to the EU, but that they as states are obliged to protect the legitimate interests of companies located in their states against corporate behaviour that has already been found to be criminal on both sides of the Atlantic.

Microsoft broke the law and has been twice convicted for it. They have, however, paid no price for doing so and have not changed their business habits whatsoever. They are still embracing and extending, they are still moving into new markets to undercut and squeeze out rivals with the help of their OS, and they are still treating market regulators as contemptible wretches who can be outlasted, outspent, and buried under the collective output of an extremely high-priced legal team.

Re:Displace and distend

[Phragmen-Lindelof]

(I hate Microsoft but) this post made me think of Walmart.
They are still embracing and extending, they are still moving into new markets to undercut and squeeze out rivals with the help of their OS, and they are still treating market regulators as contemptible wretches who can be outlasted, outspent, and buried under the collective output of an extremely high-priced legal team.

Re:Displace and distend

[Illserve]

They haven't paid a financial cost, but I'm sure that the added stress of figuring out how to handle all this is causing at least a bit of worry at the top levels, which, on top of all their presumed hand wringing about vista, can't be good for Ballmer's blood pressure, or his ability to prevent himself from hurling chairs and expletives.

I think these subtle psychological factors play a bigger long term role in the outcome of events than they are normally given credit for, whether it's Ballmer's impending nervous breakdown, or the gradual erosion of consumer confidence in Microsoft's image as a bastion of competent software design.

Re:Displace and distend

[Cadallin]

I rather thought they suceeded in the US by fighting a rear-guard delaying action, while waiting for an EVEN MORE* corporate friendly administration to come to power and call off the dogs. At least that's how I saw it.

*Please don't pretend the Clinton administration wasn't corporate friendly, it's just flat out wrong. The only difference was that Cliinton, being a Democratic Leadership Council owned democrat, at least put up an appearance of acting in the public interest, while the Bush administration has basically bent the united states over a table and made the whole country scream "Thank you Sir! May I have another?"

What the United States needs is the reincarnation of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a slavishly loyal Congress, a meteor to fall on the Supreme Court, and about 20 years.

Re:Displace and distend

[bh_doc]

Sounds like an idea for a movie. Add some zombies, and give Frank a sidekick, like a sassy talking dog or something. Hey, get Bruce Willis to play Frankie. I reckon we got winner here!

Couldn't have happened to a nicer company

[surfdaddy]

You'd think by now that they would realize that thier image is going down. Instead of being protective, why don't they put that effort into innovation? I don't think it's in their DNA.

Microsoft is sort of like General Motors - they stick with their old program, and wonder why they keep getting bludgeoned on the head time after time.

Heard recently in the Microsoft boardroom:

Gates: "Why does this keep happening to us? I give away billions and Europe treats us so badly."

Ballmer: "I haven't thrown any chairs lately. I even went to charm school"

Gates: "I've been the chief software architect for years now. You'd think they would trust me".

Ballmer: "Bill, it's for you. The Vista team. They're not going to meet their Q1 2007 deadline...."

Gates: "Oh s*#%".

Re:Couldn't have happened to a nicer company

[mrchaotica]

You'd think by now that they would realize that thier image is going down. Instead of being protective, why don't they put that effort into innovation? I don't think it's in their DNA.

There's a reason Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard Business rather than a computer science program somewhere!

Re:Couldn't have happened to a nicer company

[Opportunist]

Unlike GM, though, MS is still turning a profit.

Maybe they're lucky the Japanese didn't decide to make an OS yet. It would probably be faster, smaller, more comfortable, cheaper and use less gas.

Re:Couldn't have happened to a nicer company

[HiddenL]

There's a reason Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard Business rather than a computer science program somewhere

Cause there were only a handful of computer science programs in existence at the time?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The secret of Microsoft

[suv4x4]

Everybody knows Windows is a monopoly and that is bad. Why is it a monopoly?

• Is there a law in place to forbid competition? No.
• Is there competition, yes. Plenty of it.
• Are you allowed to remove Windows and install another OS or dual-boot Windows and another OS? Yes.

So what is this phantom threat called "monopoly" then? Noone knows. But we know it's evil. And it has to go away, so I offer you a peace of mind today. Save the following as a .reg file and run it:

-------
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Applets\FreeCell]
"monopoly"=0
-------

There we go. Your Windows is no longer a monopoly. Now can we stop with the silliness?

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[Decaff]

Are you allowed to remove Windows and install another OS or dual-boot Windows and another OS? Yes.

Being pre-installed leads to inertia on the part of a customer, especially one who is not familiar with PCs. The PC vendor puts the work in to install Windows and ensure it works well on their hardware.

This obviously gives Windows an advantage over competing systems.

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[suv4x4]

"Being pre-installed leads to inertia on the part of a customer, especially one who is not familiar with PCs. The PC vendor puts the work in to install Windows and ensure it works well on their hardware."

Ok so let's sum up what's bad:

• The OS comes preinstalled on the computer by the hardware vendor
• The OS itself bundles features such as a browser, media player and other essential applications which, due to lack of experience from the customers are strong "default" and remain in use just because they are available
• The applications for the OS in question can't run on another OS, so we have a vendor lock-in, meaning if there are no ports of the apps to another OS, the customers are out of luck

Hey, you're right. Now I know why we have to sue Apple!

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[Decaff]

Ok so let's sum up what's bad:

        * The OS comes preinstalled on the computer by the hardware vendor
        * The OS itself bundles features such as a browser, media player and other essential applications which, due to lack of experience from the customers are strong "default" and remain in use just because they are available
        * The applications for the OS in question can't run on another OS, so we have a vendor lock-in, meaning if there are no ports of the apps to another OS, the customers are out of luck

These things are not bad in principle. They are only bad if the OS in question is in a dominant position. In that case it would be potentially blocking competition in many areas.

Hey, you're right. Now I know why we have to sue Apple!

Apple is not subject to monopoly constraints because they don't have sufficient market presence. These things only matter legally if a company has a total or de-facto monopoly.

If Apple had 85% of the desktop computer market then yes, it probably would be time to review how they operated.

This is such an obvious point, I find it hard to understand why so many fail to see it.

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[suv4x4]

"Apple is not subject to monopoly constraints because they don't have sufficient market presence."

OSX have 100% market share on the market of Apple computers, don't they.

Apparently law undertstanding is pretty flexible if you're willing to put it to a critical analysis. You can claim Windows has a dominant position on PC's, PC's is just a special case of a programmable electronic device, just like Apple Macintosh is a special case of a personal computer machine.

Windows isn't dominant on electronic devices that accept an OS as a whole, so from that point of view they are suddenly not a monopoly, just like you claim Apple isn't a monopoly since you look at the whole PC market and not just the Macintosh computers market.

----

Also you become a monopoly if you have a dominant position you say, what % is that share that makes it a dominant position? If Apple turns out successful in time, could you be really nice, please, and let them know at which % they should turn the policy up side down and immediately dismantle their OS in pieces.

Do you know what this reminds me of. The Analog Hole proposal. The same those Slashdot users that flame MS on being monopolistic and how this is so different from the position Linux and Apple is, were pointing out how ridiculous it is to have DRM on "consumer" devices" but no DRM on "professional" devices (so they can do their work).

And the problem was the same: if a professional device model gradually becomes affordable and popular, at what point it turns into a consumer device, which will, of course automatically mean the said device manifacturer is sued as hell for selling consumer devices without DRM.

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[Decaff]

OSX have 100% market share on the market of Apple computers, don't they.

True, but irrelevant. Most people don't use Apple computers for specialised apple-only things. They use Apple computers for browsing, office use... etc. For this reason they are part of the general desktop computer market.

Apparently law undertstanding is pretty flexible if you're willing to put it to a critical analysis.

No, actually; the law is pretty clear.

You can claim Windows has a dominant position on PC's, PC's is just a special case of a programmable electronic device, just like Apple Macintosh is a special case of a personal computer machine.

Windows isn't dominant on electronic devices that accept an OS as a whole, so from that point of view they are suddenly not a monopoly, just like you claim Apple isn't a monopoly since you look at the whole PC market and not just the Macintosh computers market.

No. You don't use general electronic devices for things like office software. There is a recognised desktop computer market that does not include mobile phones or calculators or televisions.

Also you become a monopoly if you have a dominant position you say, what % is that share that makes it a dominant position? If Apple turns out successful in time, could you be really nice, please, and let them know at which % they should turn the policy up side down and immediately dismantle their OS in pieces.

The % at which they would need to be controlled (or at least monitored) is the % at which they can use their market share to gain unfair leverage in other markets. That is what the law says.

Do you know what this reminds me of. The Analog Hole proposal. The same those Slashdot users that flame MS on being monopolistic and how this is so different from the position Linux and Apple is, were pointing out how ridiculous it is to have DRM on "consumer" devices" but no DRM on "professional" devices (so they can do their work).

I am not flaming MS for being a monopoly. I am also not personally troubled by DRM.

What concerns me is abuse of monopoly, or gaining that monopoly by unfair means.

There is nothing at all wrong with a monopoly fairly gained and maintained through open competition.

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[drsmithy]

No, actually; the law is pretty clear.

What's a clear, objective, unambiguous metric by which a corporation can judge whether or not it is a monopoly ? Some value that's possible to know about *before* exceeding it.

There is nothing at all wrong with a monopoly fairly gained and maintained through open competition.

For all practical purposes, it is impossible to hold a monopoly position and not "abuse" it.

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[kirk__243]

For all practical purposes, it is impossible to hold a monopoly position and not "abuse" it.

Not at all true. The 'abuse' comes from using the monopoly to expand into other markets, eg Microsoft with IE, Media Player, etc. It's perfectly legitimate to have a monopoly and simply enjoy it and let it grow. It's when you use that dominant market position to force other competitiors into submission that you are breaking the law.

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[Decaff]

What's a clear, objective, unambiguous metric by which a corporation can judge whether or not it is a monopoly ? Some value that's possible to know about *before* exceeding it.

Well, being above a certain percentage of the market helps. Being 85 and 90% of all desktop computers is a pretty obvious metric.

For all practical purposes, it is impossible to hold a monopoly position and not "abuse" it.

Of course it is. The EU is indicating how this can be avoided - by not bundling certain products and by allowing fair competition in the server market.

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Tell me a non-Microsoft operating system I can install that will run all of my applications. Lacking that, point me to the specification that allows someone to implement said non-Microsoft operating system.

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[TransEurope]

Wow, das ist ja echt super das (angeblich) alles
auf Windows läuft, weil es sich kein Dritthersteller
leisten kann Microsoft dank seines ergaunerten Monopols
nicht zu unterstütze, du Schlaumeier. Du bist wie
ein Junky der sich bei seinem Dealer dafür bedankt
ihn an die NAdel gebracht zu haben.

PS: Auf meinem Slackware Linux läuft auch ALLES
was ich brauche. Von meinen preferierten
Multimedia-Anwendungen bis hin zu Maya 7.

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[amliebsch]

The 'abuse' comes from using the monopoly to expand into other markets, eg Microsoft with IE, Media Player, etc.

Are those really "other markets"? If every other desktop OS bundles those apps, and consumers expect those apps to come with the OS, then aren't they really a part of the "OS market?"

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[smoker2]

Heh, according to googles translation, you said :

Wow, which is genuinly super (allegedly) all this on Windows runs, because it cannot carry a third manufacturer Microsoft out owing to its ergaunerten monopoly not too supports itself, you smart Meier. You are like a Junky with its Dealer for it thank you it to the needle to have brought.

HP: On my Slackware Linux runs also EVERYTHING which I need. Of my preferierten Multimedia applications up to Maya 7.

Needs work I think ...

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[kirk__243]

That's kind of the point - originally these were other markets! That's how other browsers and media players were previously successful, because they weren't bundled with the OS. Since Microsoft bundled these with Windows, they've used their market dominance to force these to become the standard application.

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[drsmithy]

Not at all true. The 'abuse' comes from using the monopoly to expand into other markets, eg Microsoft with IE, Media Player, etc.

In other words, a company with a "monopoly" cannot improve its product(s) with new features that might already exist in other products.

So I was wrong. You *can* hold a monopoly position and not abuse it. You just have to let your products stagnate and avoiding any attempts to improve them in line with your competitors.

It's perfectly legitimate to have a monopoly and simply enjoy it and let it grow. It's when you use that dominant market position to force other competitiors into submission that you are breaking the law.

If the other competitors have a better product, they won't be "forced into submission". There are few examples of Microsoft products becoming dominant when they weren't the better product.

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[drsmithy]

Well, being above a certain percentage of the market helps.

What percentage ? Is it variable ? What affects its value ?

How can I find out what this percentage is *before* my company reaches it ?

Of course it is. The EU is indicating how this can be avoided - by not bundling certain products and by allowing fair competition in the server market.

In other words, by not improving their product in line with competitor's products.

So it appears you can have a monopoly and not abuse it. Of course, by doing that you'll be well on the way to going out of business by the time you *don't* have a monopoly, since you won't have been able to keep your products at feature-parity with your competitors.

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[drsmithy]

That's kind of the point - originally these were other markets! That's how other browsers and media players were previously successful, because they weren't bundled with the OS. Since Microsoft bundled these with Windows, they've used their market dominance to force these to become the standard application.

Every application (and even lots of low-level system functionality) that is included with every current OS fits this description. Why is it no-one gets upset about modern OSes "bundling" shells, network stacks, widget libraries, GUIs, printer drivers, CPU schedulers, text editors, calculators, FTP clients, card games, etc, etc, etc ?

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[Decaff]

What percentage ? Is it variable ? What affects its value ?

How can I find out what this percentage is *before* my company reaches it ?

You get in lawyers and market experts to advise you. This is what any sensible large company does - they have major legal departments.

"Of course it is. The EU is indicating how this can be avoided - by not bundling certain products and by allowing fair competition in the server market."

In other words, by not improving their product in line with competitor's products.

Of course not! Bundling is not a matter of improving their product in anyway - it is a marketing strategy; a matter of getting the foot in the door first by being pre-installed. To be on an equal footing in line with competitors products the extra features the media player etc. could be supplied extra on additional CDs with competitor's versions, or obtained through downloading (just like a competitors).

So it appears you can have a monopoly and not abuse it. Of course, by doing that you'll be well on the way to going out of business by the time you *don't* have a monopoly, since you won't have been able to keep your products at feature-parity with your competitors.

Don't be silly. Of course you can keep your products at feature-parity. The point is not to pre-install features which competitors are attempting to provide. This means things like media players, virus checkers, etc.

Pre-installation gives a built-in advantage, even for products of lesser quality.

Trying to squirm around these restrictions by labelling such features as 'part of the operating system' is one of the reasons why some don't consider Microsoft to be behaving correctly.

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[drsmithy]

You get in lawyers and market experts to advise you. This is what any sensible large company does - they have major legal departments.

However, there are no independent, objective metrics. A company cannot know whether or not it is a monopoly until a court tells it.

Of course not! Bundling is not a matter of improving their product in anyway - it is a marketing strategy; a matter of getting the foot in the door first by being pre-installed.

How many popular, mainstream software products can you think of that *haven't* improved themselves via the "bundling" of features found in other software ?

How many other OSes can you name that *don't* come with "media players, etc" ? If a competitor improves its product via the integration (or "bundling", if you prefer) of certain functionaly (eg: a media player) then how can a company in a "monopoly" position similarly improve their product without being ruled abusive ?

Answer: they cannot.

To be on an equal footing in line with competitors products the extra features the media player etc. could be supplied extra on additional CDs with competitor's versions, or obtained through downloading (just like a competitors).

And if none of the competitor's products provided sufficient/equivalent functionality ? How can a company in a monopoly position provide *better* (or even equivalent) functionality than their competitors ? They cannot, because by doing so they will be considered "abusive".

Or, as I said, a company in a "monopoly" can no longer compete, nor deliver new features - in line with competitor's products - to its customers, because it will be considered "abusive".

Don't be silly. Of course you can keep your products at feature-parity.

No, you cannot. Because every feature that a competitor has which a third party may also be capable of providing - if implemented by you - is an "abuse" of a "monopoly".

The point is not to pre-install features which competitors are attempting to provide. This means things like media players, virus checkers, etc.

So why did (and does) the same logic not apply to CPU schedulers, network stacks, memory management, hardware drivers, widget sets, text editors, calculators, disk repair tools, compression tools, backup utilities, shells, GUIs, etc, etc.

All these features have, at some time in the past, been provided by "competitors" to DOS and Windows (many still are). All have since been "bundled" into Windows. No-one seems to get too hung up on the fact Windows "bundles" notepad, a disk defragmenter and a TCP/IP stack.

How can Microsoft hope to maintain feature-parity with its competitors when they are free to integrate functionality and it is not ? How can *any* OS vendor who might be in a monopoly position improve their product when those improvements will almost certain be functionality that is also provided by a third party. The whole point of an OS is to run software, after all.

Trying to squirm around these restrictions by labelling such features as 'part of the operating system' is one of the reasons why some don't consider Microsoft to be behaving correctly.

Microsoft have not "bundled" anything that their competitors weren't already, or subsequently haven't. Indeed, one of the standard criticisms of Windows on Slashdot is that it doesn't come with *enough* functionality.

There are only two definition of "Operating System" relevant to this discussion. Either the academic definition, which would exclude almost every bit of functionality - including all typical methods of interaction - people expect from an "Operating System", or the marketing definition, which is basically whatever the vendor wants to say it is.

I remember the days when getting close to the functionality of a modern platform like Windows, OS X or the typical Linux distribution required spending a lot of money and time on finding and acquiring third-party software, little of which worked well together

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[Fanboy Troy]

However, there are no independent, objective metrics. A company cannot know whether or not it is a monopoly until a court tells it.

Well, the Clayton Act should have rung some bells at the microsoft legal department when they were "cutting Netscape's air supply":

Sec. 13a. Discrimination in rebates, discounts, or advertising service charges; underselling in particular localities; penalties It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to be a party to, or assist in, any transaction of sale, or contract to sell, which discriminates to his knowledge against competitors of the purchaser, in that, any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge is granted to the purchaser over and above any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge available at the time of such transaction to said competitors in respect of a sale of goods of like grade, quality, and quantity; to sell, or contract to sell, goods in any part of the United States at prices lower than those exacted by said person elsewhere in the United States for the purpose of destroying competition, or eliminating a competitor in such part of the United States; or, to sell, or contract to sell, goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The law is clear enough for microsoft's legal team to have noticed that they were well over the boundries of the law. If the law is vague, I urge you to explain where it is and why microsoft didn't use your explanation in its case against the US. It would be very informative. Microsoft were/are using monopolistic practices. The thing is, abusing a monopoly and crossing the line of legality is worth it, as it turns out. Also:

How many popular, mainstream software products can you think of that *haven't* improved themselves via the "bundling" of features found in other software ? How many other OSes can you name that *don't* come with "media players, etc" ? If a competitor improves its product via the integration (or "bundling", if you prefer) of certain functionaly (eg: a media player) then how can a company in a "monopoly" position similarly improve their product without being ruled abusive ?

Microsoft could have provided this functionality as a seperate CD/DVD/download. Or they could permit the uninstalling of these features as linux in particular does. The software 'bundled' with linux is easily interchangeable and in no way promotes a lock-in strategy of any sort.

How many popular, mainstream software products can you think of that *haven't* improved themselves via the "bundling" of features found in other software ? How many other OSes can you name that *don't* come with "media players, etc" ? If a competitor improves its product via the integration (or "bundling", if you prefer) of certain functionaly (eg: a media player) then how can a company in a "monopoly" position similarly improve their product without being ruled abusive ?

This can still be done by providing these applications as add-on components. And if that is too 'mispleasing', an uninstall option would be enough to get the law off microsoft's back.

So why did (and does) the same logic not apply to CPU schedulers, network stacks, memory management, hardware drivers, widget sets, text editors, calculators, disk repair tools, compression tools, backup utilities, shells, GUIs, etc, etc. All these features have, at some time in the past, been provided by "competitors" to DOS and Windows (many still are). All have since been "bundled" into Windows. No-one seems to get too hung up on the fact Windows "bundles" notepad, a disk defragmenter and a TCP/IP stack.

All these fe

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[Decaff]

However, there are no independent, objective metrics. A company cannot know whether or not it is a monopoly until a court tells it.

Of course they can. As I said, they have substantial legal departments that can advise them that they are moving into dangerous areas in terms of monopolistic behaviour. To simply wait for a court to decide is incredibly dumb - any good legal team can advise that problems may lie ahead.

How many other OSes can you name that *don't* come with "media players, etc" ?

That is, of course, not the point. Firstly, those companies are not monopolies; secondly many of them bundle several alternatives.

And if none of the competitor's products provided sufficient/equivalent functionality ?

Well hard luck to them.

How can a company in a monopoly position provide *better* (or even equivalent) functionality than their competitors ? They cannot, because by doing so they will be considered "abusive".

Sorry, but I think you need to re-read my posts.

A company in a monopoly position can of course provide better functionality than their competitors.

But just not a bundled products. There is nothing to stop Microsoft providing the best quality media player ever.

Or, as I said, a company in a "monopoly" can no longer compete, nor deliver new features - in line with competitor's products - to its customers, because it will be considered "abusive".

Delivering features in something that is an operating system is one thing. Bundling things that had generally been accepted as not being part of an OS before (such as a browser) is obviously and blatantly something else.

So why did (and does) the same logic not apply to CPU schedulers, network stacks, memory management, hardware drivers, widget sets, text editors, calculators, disk repair tools, compression tools, backup utilities, shells, GUIs, etc, etc.

Ideally, it should; and there have been exactly such debates over aspects of Windows in the past - matters such as Netware's stack, Diskeeper's NTFS disk tools etc.

There are different issues with such things, however, as what Windows normally does is provide low-functionality basic versions of many of these things (such as disk repair tools), which don't really compete with the specialised and high quality tools offered by competitors. This means that the competitors can still make substantial amounts of money.

However, what we are dealing with here is far, far larger markets - the distribution of a wide range of media types, to the extent that Windows is in some products being sold as an entire home media centre, for films, music, TV etc.

Surely you can see that there is a difference between bundling a notepad text editor and an entire home media centre. That is what Microsoft are trying to do: to leverage their substantial (monopoly) desktop presence to gain power in other markets.

That is illegal.

Microsoft have not "bundled" anything that their competitors weren't already, or subsequently haven't. Indeed, one of the standard criticisms of Windows on Slashdot is that it doesn't come with *enough* functionality.

When is the point goint to get through? This matters because they are a monopoly .

Microsoft have not "bundled" anything that their competitors weren't already, or subsequently haven't.

Nonsense. For example, back in the early 90s, Internet Explorer was not bundled. It was shipped on separate media. Microsoft deliberately tied it in as part of the core OS to crush Netscape. That is established fact.

Linux, but at least it's usually free). I have _zero_ interest in having to do that again. Most people think OSes gaining more and more functionality out of the box is a *good* thing.

Firstly, you can of course have more functionality out of the box. But why not do it the Linux way, and have more than one alternative provider of that functio

Re:The secret of Microsoft

[Decaff]

Every application (and even lots of low-level system functionality) that is included with every current OS fits this description. Why is it no-one gets upset about modern OSes "bundling" shells, network stacks, widget libraries, GUIs, printer drivers, CPU schedulers, text editors, calculators, FTP clients, card games, etc, etc, etc ?

Because Microsoft does not generally do deals to prevent other companies bundling alternatives to these. Microsoft's OEM licensing terms prevented many things like this. Microsoft targetted specifically things that would allow them to control access to major new forms of media or information.

There is all the world of difference between a card game and an internet browser or multimedia player. There is no substantial market for the distribution of card games!!

So in the Shiny Tomorrow...

[Anonymous Coward]

The decaying European economy will have a constant flow of money raised from taxes and penalties to Microsoft, and not only that.

We, Microsoft System Administrators, will have to extend our business practices, and while preparing CDs with customized Windows installation, exclude from them not only the Windows Media Player, Games and drivers for Extinct Devices, but also a hundreight new Fascinating Software like a bunch of media players, skins, games...

As for that infested hive called Microsoft... For that Axis of Evil... Well, you know, Good is going to kick Evil's ass, as always, the only question is how deeply.

Although this fight against the Microsoft is reminding me more the fighting of rats in the flank - neither the fight of Good versus Evil. I'm sorry if that hurts the feelings of admirers of .EUropean values, but Europe acts just like a prostitute in this case. For example, Microsoft is (forced?) to fund some projects like libraries, hardware and software for schools and libraries and so on. It's not a question of Microsoft's evilness, it's a question of Europe's price.

Re:So in the Shiny Tomorrow...

[quintesse]

Prostitutes force people to fund projects like libraries and schools? Wow, you learn something new on slashdot every day.

Re:So in the Shiny Tomorrow...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The point is - EU rises it's price, not punishing Microsoft. This is a question of money, not justice.

Regarding to prostitutes, they are trying to raise the price and can play a "bad girl" if you pay.

Re:So in the Shiny Tomorrow...

[toQDuj]

Well, money is one of the few punishments the EU can hand out to MS. It is impossible for the EU to order MS to split up.

The EU fines MS on a daily basis and it is up to MS to cure itself.

B.

Re:So in the Shiny Tomorrow...

[aussersterne]

The decaying European economy? The world is moving to the euro and away from the dollar. That's one of the reasons the US invaded Iraq: it was about to become the first major oil player to switch away from dollar-based production and tie itself to the euro, and the US couldn't afford to cede that.

Europe isn't acting like a prostitute, it's acting like the consumer protector that the US has never, ever been, much to its shame.

A Mindshare Monopoly - Not a Traditional Monopoly

[GenKreton]

Neal Stephenson stated it best in his essay (available free and legally on the web) The History of the Command line: Microsoft is not a traditional monopoly, and legally is not a monopoly at all if we follow strict adherance to the definition. It, however, does have a monopoly on the mindshare of the people. There is plenty of competition for MS, and much of it is arguably superior. The people just dont want to hear it, MS has won their minds. Of course one of the bigger results of this is driver companies focus and hardware support is done for them for free. But those are just imnplications which help hold the situation in place - economic intertia. Mindshare monopolies can be broken by seemingly inconsequential things.

I hate microsoft but I do hate to see them go down for things that aren't illegal really. Maybe if they were on trial for some other past deeds...

wtf are you talking about?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Are you seriously trying to argue that because America has gone and done something stupid like set up a black hole in Guantanamo that it somehow makes the EU's system of secret evidence and anonymous witnesses a good legal system? They're both bad!

I will be the first to admit that America is a hippocracy. Just ask the AMA and the AHA. But that doesn't mean that the principles of fairness should be tossed aside when judging other legal systems.

Re:wtf are you talking about?

[GnuDiff]

As noted before, EU legal system is not THAT different from US.

So "innocent until proven guilty" does hold for trials, as one would expect.
However, MS has been tried and found guilty.
Now they are appealing, and in appeals it is obviously "guilty unless proven innocent". I bet the same works in US.

Frankly, I am surprised at how much some people consider Europe to be different from US. If somebody told me that anywhere in US presumption of innocence does not hold in trials, I would be as surprised as if I heard it does not hold somewhere in EU. We are talking basic human rights here, almost.

wow,

[yagu]

I'm amazed, almost 100 posts, and no cocaine jokes.

This isn't a trial

[JanneM]

If you were on trial, would you want the assumption of innocence?

The trial is long over and MS lost. This is not a trial, but about whether MS is conforming to the judgement handed down or not.

???WTF???

[Hanthus]

I don't know why, but in the body of this post my feed agregator shows this: http://rss.slashdot.org/~a/Slashdot/slashdot/to?i= HQvliE/ o.O

Until

[Anonymous Coward]

Until the next Hitler comes along.

Sooner than you might think, judging by the whole cartoon controversy. Europe is ripe for the picking.

Re:Until

[thona]

Until the next Hitler comes along.

He is already here. His name is George W. Bush. Sieg Heil to all american friends of him.

Re:Until

[Anonymous Coward]

And which nations is to blame for that situation?, now let me see who has been meddling in middle eastern politics, arming and funding tyrants and pissing many nations of with highly questionable foreign policies in that part of the world? If WWIII goes off you bastards better be their front and centre, and if you ask nicely other western nations may help you fight the mess you are causing.

Re:Until

[Anonymous Coward]

No prob as long as the new Hitler keeps himself inside those sealed borders.

Re:Until

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit, Hitler took a country with a failing, broken economy and turned it into a world superpower in under 5 years. Bush can't even keep the US economy up, let alone improve it.

Bush supports outsourcing and allows illegal immigration to go unchecked, and allows AIPAC to retain being the largest lobby in the US government whereas Hitler would have executed someone who did that in his government.

Re:Until

[LynnwoodRooster]

By what measure do you consider the US economy failing? Just curious, you seem so certain it's in bad shape, I'd like to know what drove you to that conclusion...

I mean, 5 million new jobs since August 2003, 3.5% GDP growth, consumer confidence at 107, inflation at 2% (even with the hikes in gas), disposable income up 2%, unemployment pushing all time lows, durable goods up, productivity up, construction up, manufacuring expanding.

Ya know, I just don't see the "failing" US economy. If we're failing, then the rest of the world must really be in the toilet!

Re:Until

[cornface]

As long as you look at the $8,000,000,0000,000.00 national debt, the $400,000,000,000.00 deficit, the fact that Bush has borrowed more money in a few short years than every other administration in the history of the United States combined, our $723,429,444 annual trade deficit, massive consumer credit debt, the general population's lack of retirement planning or saving, and sky rocketing energy costs, and pretend that they aren't going to cause any problems, the economy is rocking and rolling!

Sieg

[StarKruzr]

Heil-lo, my Teutonic nemesis. This shall not be the last time we cross swords.

And by "cross swords," I think you know what I mean. Oh yes.

DIE JUDEN UEBER ALLES

Mod parent up, it's NOT a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent makes good points. It's maybe not slashdot-PC, but it's not a troll.

Re:Mod parent up, it's NOT a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew when I wrote that the fanboys would mod it as Troll or worse, but someone had to say it. What the EU bureaucrats do to competitive companies is just plain scandalous.

Microsoft is hardly a saintly company, but this whole bundling of a media player issue is just absurd.

One element in a moral code

[hackwrench]

One element of a moral code (not necessarily all moral codes) says that there are some things that superficially seem to make more money, but no matter what, do not do it, because in the long run you will not.

Re:One element in a moral code

[dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv]

that'd just be taking a longer term view of maximising profits, its not a moral view as such.

like saying if we do x, we'll make more money in the short term, but if people find out we're doing x, we'll make much less money.

so its not really a moral view, they arent not doing x because it might be wrong, simply because theres a high chance of getting caught & making less money as a result.

Re:One element in a moral code

[Korgan]

Maybe so, but I personally still prefer to use products from a company such as Canonical or Mozilla if their product fits my criteria because they at least make an effort to have a moral or ethical spine.

This is why, aside from my games machine, Ubuntu runs on all my personal PCs. I could use offerings from Redhat or SuSE or any of the many others out there, but I like the Ubuntu product (a lot) and I like the stand taken by Canonical.

This is also partly why I use Firefox instead of Opera or IE or Safari. This is why I choose Apache products over Sun's or Microsoft's offerings. All the competative products can provide the services I need. But in those situations where the feature sets all met my criteria, I will use a product from an organisation I am more likely to agree with the ethics of.

And yes, I do donate to all the opensource projects I use on a daily basis. Yes, I do buy boxed copies (or a licensed version) of software I use on a daily basis. That applies to Ubuntu, Mozilla, Apache, MySQL, Gnome, the FSF (for its GNU platform) and so on. I may not donate enough to keep a programmer employed full time, but I donate the value the software has for me.

In one case, that was quite a lot more than a license for the same type of product from a commercial/proprietary vendor would have cost me. Mostly because my dealings with the project members was so far above the others I wanted to thank them for it. They were happy to help me and they made an effort to provide me with what I was looking for without pushing me for it. The vendors were only interested in the sale of a product, not ensuring that the end result was what I wanted, just that their product was on my machines.

While ethics and morals may not make a company rich, it should be supported and it should be endorsed. Use the right software for the criteria, but when the feature sets (including support) become a non-issue, other things should be considered. Ethics is one of those things I consider.

Better a bigoted idiot...

[hackwrench]

Better a bigoted idiot that doesn't know where they don't belong than a bigoted idiot that closes itself away from the world because the world is inferior, I always say, because the latter is more intractable.

I believe that the best ideas need to win out and that the only way to determine the best ideas is to let people with ideas mingle.

Re:Better a bigoted idiot...

[mrchaotica]

I believe that the best ideas need to win out and that the only way to determine the best ideas is to let people with ideas mingle.

Oh, I agree -- I'm certainly no isolationist! it's just that "letting people with [different] ideas mingle" is not the same thing as imposing your ideology by force, which seems to be the whole of the Bush Administration's foreign policy. Not to mention that it's also the policy of the "bigoted dumbasses" I linked to, by definition -- if they were open to other ideas they wouldn't be bigoted, now would they?

Re:Better a bigoted idiot...

[drinkypoo]

it's just that "letting people with [different] ideas mingle" is not the same thing as imposing your ideology by force, which seems to be the whole of the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

This has been American policy as long as there's been a United States of America. If you look at our military history, we've been running around fucking over the governments of other countries about as long as we've had ships big enough to carry guns and men with guns around. We made numerous excursions to South America just to preserve the claim of the united fruit company on the produce of assorted countries down there. Viva capitalism!

Re:A Mindshare Monopoly - Not a Traditional Monopo

[bogjobber]

I don't know about the actual legal definition of the term monopoly, but IMO if you can patent software then you can have a monopoly in software. Just because Microsoft's monopoly is a so-called "mindshare" monopoly does not change the fact that it is very real.

Re:A Mindshare Monopoly - Not a Traditional Monopo

[Pecisk]

Yeah, right...

Microsoft *have* PC desktop monopoly, period. It is nothing wrong with that. Problem is - they have used all their monopoly power and benefits what they have because of that to...crush competition in semilegal ways, but mostly, with problems of compability for them (t.i. competition).

It is illegal and really *should* be illegal. Personally I don't give a damn that Microsoft has bilions, that it has very big market cap. I simply don't use their products, because Linux *for me* works. OS X works. Windows - very rarerly. And ALL I want is God damnn compability in protocols and several very popular file formats (MS Office).

And all these years I have wondered - why they are so resisting to share their stack with other world? They want to be only ones? Then screw them. If you mess with my life such way, I will mess with you, Microsoft.

I don't care about mindshare - it is still very hard to find very good and clever specialist to configure or even fix Exchange (I don't say anything how it is good or bad in usage, but for IT guys it is usually nightmare to support it in serious envorement). It is still very hard to find solution to rare problem of drivers, Office, any out-of-date software. It is hard to configure different apps to use different libraries in Windows. For me, Windows mindshare is just one part of IT. If IT specialist doesn't know other things than Windows, then...he will be clearly lost at some point of his career.

So, no. Microsoft has monopoly on several very important markets. It abused its position so often that I even don't believe they can be pushed to change a little bit in rational way. And its brainshare is very lofty and unconcrete mess.

Bullshit

[Overly Critical Guy]

The EU justice system does not allow a defendant the ability to defend themselves against anonymous charges and secret evidence. If you are innocent, you must prove your innocence. Microsoft finds itself backed into a corner in which they are bombarded by name-less competitors and the evidence against them is kept secret from them.

Microsoft isn't backed into a corner; they know full well who the competitors are that are cooperating with the EU's mediator to determine whether Microsoft is providing adequate API interoperability.

Microsoft wanted to declare that the mere fact the mediator spoke with their competitors meant foul-play. Well, the mediator has to speak with those competitors to do his job--determining if Microsoft was providing adequate documentation. It was a stall attempt by Microsoft that was dismissed, so Microsoft tried it in the U.S. by requesting those communications, and now it's been dismissed again.

This has nothing to do with questioning your accuser. It's about Microsoft trying to stall by calling foul-play where there is none. The mediator's job was to speak to those guys to determine the level of Microsoft's cooperation with the ruling. That there are people still believing that Microsoft is a victim in this is insane to me, but you have your opinion.

Purpose of a moral code

[hackwrench]

The whole existence of a moral code is to derive maximum benefits. The whole concept of right and wrong hinges on whether or not something provides a benefit or not.

That is to say, I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make.

Re:Purpose of a moral code

[dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv]

im saying, if a company could make millions by boiling live babies, and there was zero chance of anyone finding out, they'd do it, companies only have morals when they feel it is profitable.

its an extreme & unrealistic example, but companies exist soley to maximise profits, if they can get away with doing something wrong, they will, if it makes them more money.

if mozilla, or opera were in microsofts position, they'd abuse their power too, just like any other company would, because with that much money & power, theres not a lot that anyone can do to make them ethical.

Re:Purpose of a moral code

[hackwrench]

If it were possible to make millions by boiling live babies, and there was zero chance of anyone finding out, we'd be playing on a completely different moral playing field, so your statement doesn't really make sense with regards to the moral fabric of the universe.

Answer me this

[Anonymous Coward]

Did MS pay the programmers for IM/WMP/IE out of their profits, reducing this? No? Well, then, *I* paid for this development in the increasing cost of Windows.

Windows apologists keep saying "WMP is free! How can be given free stuff be bad?" Then in another conversation, when the increasing price of Windows is brought up they then say "Hey, you get lots more with Windows now than you used to, that's why the price has gone up!". Make your mind up, either it was free, so the price of windows HAS gone up or it wasn't free.

Re:Answer me this

[TheNetAvenger]

Did MS pay the programmers for IM/WMP/IE out of their profits, reducing this? No? Well, then, *I* paid for this development in the increasing cost of Windows.

Ok, you had me until the end of the line. Windows cost the same as it did back in 1990... What increasing costs?

Also in terms of OS releases (Upgrade Tax) Windows is a lot lower than other OSes like Solaris and especially OSX with the $99 a year bug fix tax...

Complain because it takes 5 years for MS to create a new Windows version, but in that five year, all the new features, updates, and fixes are free. Apple hasn't been so good about this, and they are other companies in the industry that literally make their MONEY off of Maintenance and support fees. (Like IBM for example, if you ever managed an AS/400 you would see the inital cost of the OS is pennies compared to the updates and fixes.)

Windows Media Player development was also distributed for Macs and Solaris years ago for free, so again your argument is a little lost when you look at this.

The development costs os Windows Media technologies goes back to the AVI development of the early 90s, and then the mid 90s when the encoder and streaming tools were added to NT Server. So the Server absorbed the costs more than the $99 desktop version of Windows you would be using.

But since we were actually talking about the Media Player interface, do you realize that a moderate programmer can turn out a comperable interface in about a week? It is the codecs and other things that are not directly Windows related that would have been the 'development' costs.

Just like IE. The development costs is in the HTML rendering technologies that OTHER programmers use on the Windows Platform, the cute interface can be recreate with very little coding. And if you don't belive this, go search for the tons of IE knock offs over the years that used the IE HTML rendering technologies.

Let's hope Microsoft stays the course

[Flying pig]

I have a relative who does European legal work for a certain Redmond based company. On behalf of him and corporate lawyers elsewhere, I hope Microsoft never gives in in this case. Mortgages, pension funds, property development, private school fees, skiing holidays, yachts and private aircraft all depend on Redmond fighting this case to the last ditch and beyond. To all the naysayers who think that Microsoft should just cave in before a load of Europeans (led by someone called Nellie, btw) I say: Think of the poor lawyers! Think of their children!

Re:Let's hope Microsoft stays the course

[Opportunist]

Hmmm... lawyers and their children depending on MS fighting this to the end...

Let's hope that fight is over tomorrow! Better today! Hey, fewer lawyers and their offspring surviving, isn't the idea tempting?

Re:Let's hope Microsoft stays the course

[frank_adrian314159]

Think of their children!

Lawyers have children!?!? I thought they ate their young!

Decaying European economy

[Flying pig]

You mean the one that's absorbing former Communist countries, that makes Japanese cars more efficiently than they can in Japan, that hosts backward companies like AMD and Airbus, and that isn't trillions in debt? Thank God I live in a decaying economy rather than a dynamic one that's exporting all its added value to China.

Re:Decaying European economy

[amliebsch]

isn't trillions in debt?

Cite please? According to my information, the UK and France alone have more external debt than the U.S. does.

Re:Decaying European economy

[LynnwoodRooster]

Hmmm... It appears that the EU has a much debt as the US and also has about 68% of the GDP per capita of the US. Yeah, that's a dynamic economy! The EU's official 9.1% unemployment rate is only twice the US - no problem there, either...

And of course, we don't have riots from the unemployed, or those who demand that employers give everyone at least 2 years of "start up" time.

A mind is a terrible thing to steal

[civilizedINTENSITY]

It wasn't so much that MS won my heart, as it was that they popped up a scary window that my system was broken, and requested that I please phone this number. When I did, the gentle person probed, asking questions, until I admitted I was running windows on top of DR DOS instead of MS DOS. This was a scam, but I didn't know that until long after the superior DR DOS was put out of business, and the company who bought the remains was put out of business, and the company who bought next (Novell) succesfully sued MS for the scam. They didn't so much "win my heart" as steal from me. Likewise, how much can you say is "winning mindshare" and how much was forcing OEMs to pay for Windows whether it was installed on a shipped PC or not? Or worse, raising the price to put an OEM out of business if they didn't actually physically install MS Windows on everything they shipped? Won the hearts and minds. Yeah. The bastards. They *stole* mindshare for inferior products using deceptive and illegal practices.

Will the EU give in to Mircrosoft?

[Savage-Rabbit]

It might be next month, or it might be years from now, but the EU will eventually cave and give in to Microsoft.

I don't think so! It is in the interest of the US to maintain the Microsoft monopoly just like it was and still is in their interest to maintain other monopolies or market dominances such as the one Boeing had over the commercial airliner market. It turned out to be in the interest of the European Union to crack the Boeing dominance, Airbus is wiping the floor with Boeing on a number of levels these days, and that example showed alot of people over here that the US corporations can be defeated even if they are supported by the US government. It is in the interest of the European Union to crack Microsoft's stranglehold on the European market since that will only boost their own software industries if they play their cards right. Despite the dismissive attitudes of US neocons toward Europe as a place to do business the European Union is still a market of 460 million people and as such it represents a very significant source of revenue for Microsoft. Threatening this revenue gives the EU considerable leverage against Microsoft and since MS is a US corporation the EU has little motivation to be kind to them.

Guantanamo

[Anonymous Coward]

All I can say is : Guantanamo.

Perhaps then, we should just simply release all our Guantanamo detainees first thing tomorrow morning.... and drop them off in France.

"hipocracy" ?

[GroeFaZ]

Like in, "I, for one, welcome our new hippo overlords"?

Oooh, you surely meant "hypocrisy" :)

The article is inacurate on one crucial point

[boule75]

Note that, once again, the article is inacurate on one crucial point :
<p>
<i>Brussels has ordered Microsoft to open up its software code to rivals</i>
<p>
Wrong. One of the demand is that Microsoft provide usefull and complete documentation about its protocol so that other competitors can implement compatible systems working with the Windows environment. Precisely, MSFT <i>has</i> provided a source code, claiming it was their "ultimate documentation". The experts on the case disagree, and so does the commission; a source code is no documentation. They are still faulty, by wide margins.
<p>
And there are other demands by the EU, aiming at stopping them from leveraging on the OS to expand their monopoly over other fields (Media player, instant messaging, file servers, messenging systems perhaps, and so on).

I wonder why the Commission did not aim the PDA/Phone markets too. At least I do not know if they did. Last time I requested from MSFT the meaning of Active Sync error codes, to dig into this whole mess while using -surprise !- another editor's PIM software, I received the following -oral- answer: "we lost them, we do not know what all those error numbers mean". Sure... Thanks for your help Bill.

Re:The article is inacurate on one crucial point

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but they were not asked to show source, but documentation. They used source as a way to try to not show how to use it. I'm quite sure that you have not tried to read a couple of hundred million lines of code recently...

Re:The article is inacurate on one crucial point

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that whole OSS argument that users can see the source is a load of old crap

Big differences

[Opportunist]

Yes, every OS comes "bundled" with players. Plural. And said players are usually not made by the same company that offers the OS itself. And you may decide for yourself whether you want to use the player offered by the bundling company, you can remove it if you don't like it, or not install it altogether.

That are in short the key differences.

If the Media Player was done by a different company, if they bundled different players to give you a choice or if you could decide yourself whether or not you want the MP to be installed with your system (and if you could COMPLETELY get rid of it), it would be a very different matter.

Re:Big differences

[aesiamun]

You mean like APPLE iTunes?

That's written by the same company that makes the OS which is written by the same company who owns the hardware.

No, no, you don't

[hackwrench]

You don't prefer to use products from a company such as Canonical or Mozilla if their product fits my criteria because they at least make an effort to have a moral or ethical spine. You do it because their morality more fits in line with yours.

Obviously you have never been to traffic court.

[expro]

If somebody told me that anywhere in US presumption of innocence does not hold in trials, I would be as surprised as if I heard it does not hold somewhere in EU.

Obviously you have never been to traffic court.

MS can't win. And they know it.

[Opportunist]

MS is required to provide "meaningful" API documentation. Now, anyone who's ever worked for a large corp knows one thing: These docs don't exist. Never did. Never will. You know how it goes, you write software, it is late, you get pressure, you somehow patch it together and you finally check it in then fall into coma. Documentation? Read the effing source!

Now, RTFS works in house. Where you can, to some extent at least, hand over the source or at least the more important parts of it. Including "documentation" that goes along the lines of "and as the second argument, pass a structure to fill in so you know if the hack throws a fit worse than Balmer".

Can you hand out that kind of "documentation"? And is it "meaningful"?

Hardly. It would be, at best, an oath of disclosure of your inaptitude.

MS is indeed with its back to the wall. They simply CANNOT produce those docs. They most likely don't exist. Hell, the people who COULD write the docs most likely don't exist anymore there. Not even with "more time" they could give the essential information required. So they're playing the game of stalling, appealing, calling for aid to whoever is available and tries to grasp for straws.

RE: MS can't win. And they know it.

[carrier lost]

I respectfully disagree with this comment.

I think Microsoft is fighting tooth-and-nail to withold the information necessary to interoperate seamlessly with Office (particularly Word and Excel) and Windows. Once that information is out, Samba, Open Office and a ragged horde of other smaller, free applications will slaughter those two cash cows and Microsoft will be mortally wounded.

"They simply CANNOT produce those docs. They most likely don't exist."

Enough of this documentation exists so that newer developers can create newer versions of Office which interoperate with older versions. That's all that's necessary.

Just my opinion, anyway

MjM

To h3ll with th3m

[Anonymous Coward]

Fsck Microsoft. They deserve everything they get. Plain enough?

Microsoft Shrugs

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont understand why MS doesnt just say "Ok, fuck you" and withdraw from europe. Refuse to sell their products or provide support to anyone in the EU and only provide support for existing liscences until they expire.

If the EU doesnt like MS, why try to force them to use their products? Hey, if the EU doesnt like MS thats fine, thats their choice; let the EU try to compete on the world market without using MS products. Sure, MS would lose some money, but the EU isnt the world; its just one of the few remaining fuedal parts of the world. I mean, if the cost of doing business somewhere is to let the EU fuedal overlords (excuse me, EU commission) dictate how you run your business, the cost far outweighs the benefits. Compromise but dont compromise yourself. The answer is obvious; dont do business there.

Focus on the Americas and especially Asia. Obviously the EU doesnt want MS, they dont want to use MS's products, so why try to be somewhere youre not wanted? Let the EU IT industry compete in the world market without using MS's products in any way. Obviously theyll do far better when not shackled by a monopoly. Obviously MS products are what is holding the EU back from being the IT leader of the world, as all cultured and sophisticated people recognize they should be. Of course the EU fuedal lords (excuse me, EU commission) know whats best for their subjects (excuse me, citizens), so the EU IT industry will be guided and rewarded by pure moral and philosophical motives which of course far outweigh any disgusting material/earthly benefit.

Re:Microsoft Shrugs

[Chemicalscum]

Perhaps you didn't notice but the companies that complained to the EC about MS's anti-competitive activities, Oracle, Sun, Novell and Real are all US ones.

This is not about the EC being anti-american, it is about them trying to enforce european laws on competition. They are not that different from US anti-trust laws under which MS has been found guilty as an illegal monopoly. The US has the best justice system money can buy so MS bought a slap on the wrist. Europe is merely going where the US courts should have gone in trying provide redress for MS's anti-competitive practices.

Re:Microsoft Shrugs

[meringuoid]

I dont understand why MS doesnt just say "Ok, fuck you" and withdraw from europe. Refuse to sell their products or provide support to anyone in the EU and only provide support for existing liscences until they expire.

Most obvious reason: the EU is the world's biggest market. The MS shareholders would go berserk on the spot.

More subtle reason: if MS left, in an attempt to blackmail the EU... 'right, you don't like us, try doing without Vista!' one of two things would happen:

1) it turns out that the EU can do just fine without Vista. So why should anyone else cough up for the 'upgrade'? MS loses money.

2) it turns out that the EU economy is crippled without MS products. Very well: issue an edict, all Microsoft copyrights within the EU are revoked. End of problem. Microsoft screams in agony as every geek across a very heavily wired continent puts Vista up on FTP. Legally.

Re:Microsoft Shrugs

[nickco3]

I dont understand why MS doesnt just say "Ok, fuck you" and withdraw from europe.

You've got this backwards. All the Microsoft products being withdrawn from Europe is the EU's nuclear option against Microsoft, *not* the other way around.

Microsoft would probably survive such a move, albeit in some reduced form. Gates and Ballmer certainly wouldn't, the shareholders would have their heads on a pole.

The real point

[LaughingCoder]

At some point you just have to wonder what the real point of these suits is ...

Hmmm, Microsoft has a big pile of money. Everybody wants it. That would be the real point.

Re:The real point

[Anonymous Coward]

"At some point you just have to wonder what the real point of these suits is ...

Hmmm, Microsoft has a big pile of money. Everybody wants it. That would be the real point."

No, Bill, the REAL point is to stop an Amercan corporation breaking EU laws.

Now go home and fix Vista.

Alternative article titles

[Anonymous Coward]

* Microsoft blows EU in new row * Microsoft blows new EU in row * EU rows and blows Microsoft ;)

pretty insipid observation, IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

parent poster is obviously a fatuous miscreant more impressed with her own keystrokes than reality - the Gitmo simile proves this

This is getting absurd

[CMBologna]

I like to say that I advocate for open source but if a company decides to develop closed source software that's their choice. That said, it's my oppinion that a bunch of companies are lobbying (and perhaps with no "good intentions") for these sanctions on MS even though it seems they have complied to a great length with the demands of the plaintiffs, but I argue, isn't there a limit up to where these compatitors can pretend compliance in regards to intellectual rights that MS has on it's own software? At the moment this whole thing is starting to look like a Witch Hunt and I'm starting to wonder who is benefitting on it.

Re:This is getting absurd

[rewt66]

"even though it seems they have complied to a great length with the demands of the plaintiffs"

It may seem like that, but they haven't. The requirement is that they publicly document their APIs. What MS has done in response is make available source code for a large fee (50-100 thousand dollars). You do understand that that isn't the same thing they were required to do, don't you? If not, I'll explain a bit.

API documentation is something that tells what parameters a function takes, and what the values mean. Source code tells exactly how the function does what it does. It's true that I can derive the first from the second, but it's a lot of work. So what Microsoft has done is made available for a high price something that was much less helpful than what they were ordered to provide for free. That's not compliance. That's the kind of stuff that earns a two-year-old a spanking.

No new development. MS still has not paid.

[Anonymous Coward]

No you didn't miss anything. There have been no new developments. MS still hasn't paid a dime of the fine. MS still hasn't complied with the court either.

Don't hold your breath waiting either. MS will wait until the little dogs in the EC have yapped themselves breathless and then call them to heel once it has the lock on the audio/visual market as well.

Your irony blocker works just fine

[Anonymous Coward]

However, believe me, it's best for us all if Microsoft is spending money on lawyers rather than some of the other people they spend it on.

its NOT about the freaking media player !

[Blu-Ray]

Why is everybody so hang up on the media player thing. That is just the result of bureaucratic wheels running 'very' slowly. that media player thing is from when there actually 'was' a battle between competing products like when there was a battle between 'browsers'. that is: years back! However what is the most interesting from the start and what this is all about now is opening the SMB/CIFS api's. The 'ability' to communicate with windows systems (clients and servers) on a level 'par' MS Software..

And that is what MS seems to dread more than anything..

for those 'in the know' mentioning other os'es competition. linux desktop is said to have a market share of 1% to 1.5% and that is the biggest contender..

I would call 90% cover a monopoly and MS has a lot more market than that

Re:its NOT about the freaking media player !

[Anonymous Coward]

So your logic is that since MSFT did not open their API's they are a monopoly?

      Now replace MSFT with any other corp and any one of their manufactured products here, should everything made by everyone be subject to "open source".

      Elimintaing the proprietary nature of everything under the sun.

      Open Source is fine for those who freely decide to participate and develop their own product but to litigate and then attempt to force a company to reveal trade secrets is not Open Source, its extortion.

      Sorry to burst your bubble shaped delusion but try to apply your logic to everything you own and you'll soon begin to see that its really just about punishing the winner, the popular student on campus and less about justice!

Is Justice, Just Ice?

Re:A Mindshare Monopoly - Not a Traditional Monopo

[ajs318]

It's actually called "In the Beginning was the Command Line" and you can find it here [zip file].

Microsoft have managed to subvert most of the usual processes of ensuring fairness, because their "product" was something so new, and without any analogies elsewhere, that there just were no rules that could be used as a starting point.

To make pattern parts for a car, you buy the "official" part and go over it thoroughly with measuring instruments. Your parts have to match certain critical dimensions {such as the positions and threads of fixing holes, and possibly electrical current / voltage and hydraulic flow / pressure ratings} but may also do some things differently to the original parts. Point is, nothing seeks to stop you making them.

Now, suppose one car manufacturer decided that they would print a handbook containing certain important facts and figures about their cars, sell this at an extortionate price to manufacturers of pattern parts, and allow pattern parts only to be made according to the figures in the book and not by measuring original parts, and only by manufacturers who bought the book at full price from the car manufacturer. Obviously, this would restrict manufacturers to parts that they could manufacture using the specifications given in the book; if the book neglected to mention the maximum current likely to be drawn by the horn then this would preclude the manufacture of pattern horn relays. Additionally, incorrect data in the book might well lead to the manufacture of parts which could not actually be fitted to a vehicle.

Fortunately, this sort of thing would not be allowed in real life: once a car has been sold to a consumer, Exhaustion of Rights kicks in, and then the only thing standing between you and fitting all the aftermarket pattern parts you want is the annual roadworthiness test.

Unfortunately, when computers appeared on the scene, everyone was so blinded by science that they panicked, and common sense went out of the window. There isn't really an analogy in the non-computerised world for an operating system. For copyright purposes, computer software was classed as a work of literature. Now, this may not have been the right thing to do. Works of literature are not particularly modifiable and don't usually create other things; there isn't an obvious aftermarket. Computer programs can be modified to change their behaviour, and many computer programs create data files. This is evidence of two potential aftermarkets: one in modifying software that people have already purchased to alter or enhance its functionality, and another in supplying software to analyse and manipulate the data files created by other software.

Microsoft {and, it must be said, others; though nowadays Microsoft have eliminated or absorbed most of their competitors} have made unreasonable restrictions upon the legitimate use of their software. These include seeking to deny users the right to adapt software to their requirements, thus imposing their idea of a way of working on users {an act of violence}; and blocking the development of software which would work in various with data files created by Microsoft software, by deliberately withholding necessary details {also an act of violence}.

The owner of a car has the right to fit a new stereo, extra lights or upgraded braking systems supplied by parties other than the original manufacturer. The owner of a piece of software should have the right to change aspects of the way it works, or use other software supplied by a third party to interact with data files generated by the original software. Microsoft are guilty of interfering with those rights.

Come on, a measly half a billion :)

[Blu-Ray]

For the EU that is kids pocket change ..

by the way, about the voluntary contribution to the state, didn't they invent something called TAXES for that..

Huh? Get a Q-tip.

[Kadin2048]

It makes perfect sense to me; every other desktop operating system, when you add their marketshare together, are insufficient to challenge the monopoly that Windows has over the market.

We've all seen the pie charts--it's 90-something percent Windows and a sliver of "everything else." It pains me to say that as a Linux and Mac user, but that's how it is. Even if every non-Windows computer in the world was running the same OS, and not a variety of different ones, Windows would still have a monopoly. It's not a 100% monopoly, but that's not what the word means.

The rest of us get it

[c_woolley]

The only plan the EU sees is to make Microsoft pay for unbelievable fines for something that most companies would tell them to go stick it for. Microsoft has definately made very bad "fair business" decisions in the past, and I am not trying to defend them on that, but what the EU is asking for is totally insane, and how can they possibly justify it? As far as the codecs...okay, so the codecs go into MS format. The vast majority of media players already make use of them, and who hasn't already found that they can download LEGAL software that will translate into another viable format? This isn't meant to be a bash on your opinion, but I don't feel the EU is justified in many of their actions of late.

Re:The rest of us get it

[sumdumass]

Some one has to pay for thye ability to read those codec. This is were both of your alternatives play into microsofts hands.

First, in order for another player to legaly use the MS codecs, they have to have osme licensing arangment form microsoft. Last i checked, this was somethign that they negotiated on indevidual basis. What and how much needs to be payed varries but microsoft does get money from it. Now don't confuse media players with programed players that use the WMP api and just display it a little differently.

Next, in order for a program to convert the file into somehtign usable by another player (without MS codecs), it has to be able to interpret the MScodecs. See obove for further implication on this.

The bottom line is that microsoft gets a cut because they havemanaged a monopoly on this because they bundled it with thier other monopoly products. But the more important issue here is that microsoft at one time refused to allow OEMs the ability to include other media players. This is what gave them the control. Some OEM's were allowed to rebrand WMP and change the skins but they were esentialy WMP with MScodecs. Some of this has changed in the near past but not alot. Now in the beguining, Real,quicktime, microsoft, and others were competing to sell the server software, streaming abilities and the actual encoding abilities. This doesn't seem like the case because ever sonce XP, you had free codecs and encoding software bundled with XP.

Delay is the goal!

[redelm]

No, not Tom. He's gone. MSFT is looking to delay the EU rulings as much as possible. US subpoenae risk a contempt-of-court rebuke in the EU, but not much more.

It actually would have hurt MSFT worse if the subpoena were approved, however improper. It would have eliminated the appeal, and cut delays. MSFT know this, so make their requests as outrageous and opposible as possible.

MSFT have learned that in a fast-changing technological world, justice delayed is as good as justice denied. Unfortunately, the legal system works by giving maximum defense latitude, and that brings in delays.

Nonsense.

[jotaeleemeese]

If your "big corporation" is full of prgramming cowboys you can't extrapolate that to all the other big corporations.

There are many corporations that document properly their programms, including detailed API information.

I would expect thisto be the case in a software development company like MS.

Re:Nonsense.

[Opportunist]

I've had my share of big corp progging. So far, I didn't find a single one that did proper documenting. But then again, I have pretty high standards when it comes to "proper".

Litigation Propagation

[Anonymous Coward]

." Now I could be wrong, but last time I checked every OS comes with a Media Player. At some point you just have to wonder what the real point of these suits is if they're not going to call MS on its real bad business practices and will instead throw questionable charges at Microsoft."

    Precisely put from the first poster on this topic. Every OS comes with a Media player like every fucking car comes with a radio and heater. How the fuck did this become the basis for any litigation at all

      I will tell you how, its just anti-americanism propagated by euro-trash and their useful idiots here in the US.

    You cant beat them, SUE EM!

    Is it not obvious that the bulk of ongoing litigation involves uber successful American corporations and that anti-trust, patent viloations or other ridiculous charges leveled at these companies is just a method used by their competitors to trip up and slow down the defendants success.

      Of course RIM may be an exception being a Canadian company so its not as cut and dry as I may declare but nevertheless, its there.

      How many fucking lawsuits kicked off by EU corporations against American or at the very least North American companies will it take until Americans realize this just all stems from the fact that we did not cowtow to old europe in global politics (election of GWB and Iraq) and especially not in business.

      Oh thats right, we sent that message for a straight 6 years now and all they can repond with is litigation as a means of fighting some aspect of an unrestricted economic war while kissing our ass when its beneficial for them.

      Thats all they got!

New Blow for Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, those guys get everything!

Declarations of War

[Kadin2048]

Going to war--really going to war--requires a specific Act of Congress, a Declaration of War. I think the last time this was actually done was after Pearl Harbor, 'wars' since then have been peackeeping or police actions (Truman I believe coined the phrase "police action" in reference to the UN deployment that began Korea).

The cynic's answer to your question is, the reason it's not often done is that it's perceived as being more difficult to garner the support in Congress necessary to pass a Declaration of War than it is to just send some troops in as peacekeepers, more or less start a war, and then get people to support it retroactively. It becomes markedly more difficult to oppose a war once troops are already on the ground there; one can fairly trivially paint one's opponents as unpatriotic, potentially treasonous, at that point, where it would be difficult to do that earlier.

The current War in Iraq is sort of in a grey area between a executive action and an actual, formally declared war, although tending towards the latter; it was approved by Congress via the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of Force in Iraq" (I think I'm getting that name right) in advance of hostilities, but a real Declaration of War wasn't signed. I'm not exactly sure why they didn't go the extra step and just get a formal declaration, it seems as though there was enough support for it, and the Authorization they got is tantamount to one anyway. It serves the same function, but without the fancy name.

I'm not sure whether the War Powers Act effictively did away with Declarations of War and replaced them with the Authorizations that now seem to be more common; personally I always though the symbolism of the Congressional Declaration was useful, and it seems to me that if you have the political support for it, why not do it and remove the possibility of having your procedure questioned later.

Re:Microsoft is Quasi-Governmental Agency...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and so it makes little sense for the EU to try and fight with anti-trust actions. Why don't the Europeans wise up and just put a team of dev talent together and create their own OS so as to guarantee privacy for their business residents?

They Can't Afford to Lose

[carrier lost]

Microsoft is fighting tooth-and-nail to withold the information necessary to interoperate seamlessly with Office (particularly Word and Excel) and Windows.

Once that information is out, Samba, Open Office and a ragged horde of other smaller, free applications will slaughter those two cash cows and Microsoft will be mortally wounded.

Just my opinion, anyway

MjM

Re:They Can't Afford to Lose

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can be forced to "open" their code then by all rights all other products, hardware or software should be purged of their proprietary nature also.

      So in this way, your utopian delusional fantasy of all things being fair and equal 100% of the time could possibly gain a foothold and then die on the vine when you all realize your efforts worked to stymie innovation due to lack of incentive to actually create anything for fear of being sued or being forced to operate withing some socialistic utopia or worse yet, confiscated by nationalistic interests like the EU or other govt/industry entity.

See USSR/Russia or whatever they are calling themselves today for perspective.

Can you think of anything in your home right now other than a bottle of Vodka that arose out of that misery and all because of the fallicy of "equality", alleged "Open Access" or "Co Development" "shared resources" and dare I say it todays cloak "open source".

Dream on Fool!

Sorry, I meant

[Flying pig]

The rate of increase of external debt. The CIA factbook makes it clear that the total debt of the mainland European economies was about half that of the US and its UK satellite combined.

Re:Sorry, I meant

[amliebsch]

It's still well into the "trillions" range.

Process is automated.

[twitter]

MS is indeed with its back to the wall. They simply CANNOT produce those docs. They most likely don't exist. Hell, the people who COULD write the docs most likely don't exist anymore there. Not even with "more time" they could give the essential information required. So they're playing the game of stalling, appealing, calling for aid to whoever is available and tries to grasp for straws.

Most modern IDEs, including Kdevelop, will automatically create documentation for you. I don't know and don't care if M$ has such tools but it's wrong to say they can't.

BBC is important

[twitter]

The BBC is one of the most read newspapers in the world. More than Slashdot is interested in this issue.

New blow for Microsoft?!?

[Locke2005]

Well, I guess that explains the state of Microsoft code... they've been snorting too much "blow"! Must have used up all the old blow...

quicktime without iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

If you download and select to install the bundeled version, then at the EULA for iTunes select 'no' or 'i disagree' or whatever, then you can install quicktim without iTunes, that's how i got around it,

still had to remove the start bar iTunes folder tho'.

Unheard Of

[JusticeISaid]

Microsoft overreaching in order to advance its interests? I'm shocked! And dismayed. That's it, shocked and dismayed.

Exactly....

[hurfy]

"Try going to Apple's home page and clicking the Quicktime tab at the top, and you'll see a big "Quicktime for Windows" download button"

which will take you to the next screen with a big FREE DOWNLOAD button which will download itunessetup.exe !

There is a little text link on there somewhere to download JUST the program you were aiming for. The page is also clearer about it being quicktime AND itunes than it was last week? when i did it..and got itunes instead. All i wanted was to watch some short little clip that needed quicktime and the default links take you that monster.

Re:Exactly....

[rahrens]

And when I looked at the download page, it took me about 45 seconds to see the "quicktime standalone installer" link. Not at all hard to find, just read.

??, OK, i'll bite ;)

[Blu-Ray]

So your logic is that since MSFT did not open their API's they are a monopoly?

no, I said that >90% market share is already a monopoly and since MS has about 98% of all desktops and I don't know how much % of servers. By the way, the servers came in via the desktops..

'cause of that it is necessary to be able to 'talk' to windows installations. Either desktop or server.

'Cause the negative situation of monopoly's is well understood the EU and US government try to stand against that. If you'd want any chance at all to bring anything new or competing you will at least have to 'work' with MS windows.

by the way, as a MS customer myself, I am thrilled about every bit of competition there is out there for Microsoft. It is the only way to make MS make better/newer stuff :)

Same for Intel customers, please buy some AMD stuff, just to thank them to make Intel create *much* better processors!

Lacking a bit knowledge about Europe?

[WoOS]

Germany, for example, used (not sure if they still do) to force stores to sell at the same price

Only for books, magazines and similar 'cultural' items to give publishers more chances to cross-subsidize the 'avantgarde' products with the mass-market ones.

No wonder Germans and other Europeans, when they have a choice, shop at WalMart, Corte Inglais, and other large stores that offer lower prices.

Uhm, Walmart is posting a loss year after year in Germany. Absolutly-no-thrills supermarkets (Aldi, Lidl) grabbed a big part of the market and are now steamrolling the rest of Europe. Germany is considered the most difficult retail market of Europe (the world?) as margins are minimal.

And why? Because market regulation prevents the oligopolies to turn into monopolies (well, at least tries to unless overturned by politicians). And oligopolies trying to form trusts are actually fined.

no buy for M$TF.

[twitter]

Investors obviously wouldn't like it, but according to that link, microsoft makes 10 million in profit (40 million in revenue) every single day.

So, every million bucks in fines takes 10% of their profit. The fines are potentially $2.4/day, so about the EU will take 1/4 of M$'s profits for themselves. Their stock price would drop the same amount, and then some.

Re:no buy for M$TF.

[jb.hl.com]

And you, twitter, would have your hands in your little girly panties masturbating out every turgid drop of semen you have in your pathetic tiny testicles over M$ (LOL that makes them evil LOL) being sent down.

Only a Mater of Time.

[twitter]

a lot of those local software companies also base their products on Microsoft's infrastructure ... blarg, so complex!

Don't worry, the with it companies are following the Munich example.

The downward spiral is clear. Third rate product and abusive practices are reducing their sales already. Add further Vista delays and dissapointment and the looming recession from increased oil prices and their revenues will drop off the chart. That and $2.4 million a day will finally trigger a shareholder revolt which destroys the value of their stock and their ability to pay their employees. No employees, no product, no revenue, no employees. It's taken long enough to happen.

offtopic

[GnuDiff]

I cherish my ignorance on the subject. :)
In fact, in my 30 years, I haven't even had the need to own a car yet - a cab works for my needs 90% of time and is cheaper in the long run.

Unable to read for comprehension?

[Registered Coward v2]

Germany, for example, used (not sure if they still do) to force stores to sell at the same price

Only for books, magazines and similar 'cultural' items to give publishers more chances to cross-subsidize the 'avantgarde' products with the mass-market ones.

It used to be for much more - things had a richtpreis that was the selling price store to store. Switzerland even limited sales to specific dates and only allowed two per year. Germany and much of teh EU have opened markets to more competition, and I susspect more and more of the small family owned stores will close as the more efficient hyper markets attarct customers with lower prices. (Which WalMart and Aldi are already doing to those stores)

No wonder Germans and other Europeans, when they have a choice, shop at WalMart, Corte Inglais, and other large stores that offer lower prices.

Uhm, Walmart is posting a loss year after year in Germany. Absolutly-no-thrills supermarkets (Aldi, Lidl) grabbed a big part of the market and are now steamrolling the rest of Europe. Germany is considered the most difficult retail market of Europe (the world?) as margins are minimal.

As I pointed out - given a choice the consumers prefer lower prices, wether it's Aldi, Walmart or another store. They were not always afforded that opportunity in most of Europe as government regulations essentially eliminated sicounted of list prices.

And why? Because market regulation prevents the oligopolies to turn into monopolies (well, at least tries to unless overturned by politicians). And oligopolies trying to form trusts are actually fined.

Market regulations usually benefit the companies at the expense of the consumers - by keeping prices higher than if competition were allowed. Want to keep coal miners employed even if it means higher energy prices for consumers beacuse coal from South Africa is cheaper - add a tax onto energy. Competition means that some stores will close and poeple will lose jobs - outcomes politicians, especially in the more paternalistic EU countires, loath.