Slashdot Mirror
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."
So close.
... 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.
Anyway. FTFA:
"Enforcing Microsoft's
Now that was a profoundly unexplained statement. Does anyone know why this is the case?
+++ATH0
Even if their subpoena gets denied in Europe, they can later use the denial as a grounds for appeal (again, in Europe).
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
"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."
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!"
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
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.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
http://tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=business&s=risen0
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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
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.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
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.
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.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
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.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
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.
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.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
The rest of the world would be delighted if the US did exactly that.
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!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
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.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
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.
Because your SUVs would run out of gas.
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!
Pining for the fjords
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.