Slashdot Mirror
EU Prepared to Fine Microsoft $2.5 Million Per Day
Lord_Slepnir writes "The European Union is unsatisfied with Microsoft's compliance with their anti-trust compliance from 2004, and is preparing to fine them 2 million Euros ($2.5m US) per day until they comply. Under that ruling, Microsoft must open up parts of their operating system to competitors, and change how they bundle Media Player." From the article: "On Monday, Microsoft said it had begun to provide the information Brussels had demanded, but the Commission has signaled the company acted too late. In December, Brussels informed the software giant that it had failed to comply with the original ruling it issued in March 2004."
That's for sure. This has been going on for quite some time. I think it was at least a year ago that the EU would fine microsoft every day.
If they comply right away, do they not get fined?
+5, Truth
What are the chances of this being simply an excuse to generate a $2.5 million per day revenue stream for the EU government?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
change how they bundle Media Player.
//open to pointers on how to excise MP10 from my new machine completely.
I don't think you can bundle anything more than making it completely uninstallable.
Poor, poor Microsoft.
How will they come up with enough change out of Bill Gates' couch to pay that daily?
They might have to pull directly from the company coffee fund!
I think it was at least a year ago that the EU would fine microsoft every day.
Scratch that. If I RTFA, I would know that that was exactly what they said in 2004.
... Than the limited (though enormous) fines the EU was talking about the last time. Last I recall, the total fine was around 50 million dollars.
:-)
US$ 2.5M per day should be enough to get Microsoft full and undivided attention and, hopefully, make it play nice with other software suppliers. Or at least put on a better show of compliance.
Yes, I am rabidly anti-Microsoft... How could you tell?
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
It's all a questions of respect. The US government barked, but when it came to biting, they didn't. As a result, MS does not and will probably not ever again have respect for them.
Apparently, someone in the EU has some soft skills and knows that at this stage it isn't about being right or wrong or fair or blablabla. If the EU doesn't bite after making so much noise about it, they'll have a hard time ever getting MS to comply with anything.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
at that rate, they can only hold out for 33 years!!
Somehow I'm guessing that "The check's in the mail" wouldn't be enough for the EU here?
Now Bill will have no confusion in how to spend what Warren Buffett gave him. He now should be seriously thinking of changing his name from Bill to NOBILL
If I did my math right, isn't that like 9-something-billion per year in fines? And doesn't MS generate something like 40 billion per year in revenue? I say they won't even notice....
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
oops, bad math, they can hold out for 666 years based on their market value, forever if you assume they get 4% interest.
So they fine MS... assuming MS actually pays (seems kind of unlikely), what are they going to do with the cash? I RTFA and it didn't mention it. I'd love to see it go to aiding the folks that MS's anticompetitive tactics have hampered, but how would that work? Or would they give it to charity, use it to lower taxes a tiny bit, something positive for people?
-Lod
Greed-driven Microsoft vs the avaricious European Union, FIGHT!
Longer than that - Microsoft still brings in more than that each day...
Under that ruling, Microsoft must open up parts of their operating system to competitors, and change how they bundle Media Player.
Just for clarification before anyone gets on their soapbox about how Microsoft shouldn't have to open their code to competitors, that is not the parts that the EU wants. They want MS to dislose API type information so that competitors can better interface with Windows. i.e. Samba.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Thank you for fining us. Enclosed you find our offer about Windows Vista special EU edition, the ONLY edition the EU parlament and its associated organs may use. A license costs 2*10^6 USD a day.
Or, could we talk that fine thing over, maybe?
(it's fun to have a monopoly, ain't it?)
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Despite how much I dislike MS I'm starting to wonder if it's even their fault. I mean they keep stumbling and stumbling. "We need Vista out the door now", they still can't do it. I'm not saying that MS isn't purposly dragging their feet here, but I wonder if behind the scenes it's just such a mess of code and red tape that they're honestly having a hard time complying. It's still just an excuse though and the fines could stand regardless.
"Microsoft must open up parts of their operating system to competitors, and change how they bundle Media Player."
This is ambiguous and misleading commentary. MS has been ordered to document the APIs of the interaction between their monopoly desktop OS and their non-monopoly server OS to allow competition. This is not "opening up" any part of their OS. They have not been asked to provide any source code and in fact they offered source code as an alternative to the documentation (under terms that would have gutted the benefits of the punishment) and it was rejected as unsatisfactory. To reiterate, MS was not ordered to open up any code, only to provide documentation on the interaction of their OS's.
I'm not sure what Gates's net worth is at the moment, but let's say he's got 40 billion in the bank, which is probably about right.
At 2.5 million dollars a day, he'd be bankrupt in 54 years, assuming absolutely no income or other expenditures.
I'm sure the company's pockets are much deeper than Gates's personal fortune.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
... spoil the megacorp.
Seriously, it seems that the entire history of antitrust action against MS in the US and Europe has been a colossal waste of time and effort. All it has done is show that governments don't really have the teeth to cut into Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. I originally thought the DOJ action was going to curb MS, but it didn't.
When push came to shove, the US government wasn't truly prepared to make one of the crown jewels of American business suffer in order to make it change its ways. The EU is likely unwilling to push too hard for fear of invoking the wrath of the US government, which is just further proof that if a business becomes big enough, it can only very rarely be constrained by government.
Market forces are doing a far better job of constraining Microsoft. Perhaps if Microsoft's competitors hadn't relied on antitrust lawsuits to save them, they might have fought MS more aggressively and effectively in the past. Apple learned its lesson. Sun (belatedly) learned its lesson. The lesson is that the government isn't going to help you fight Microsoft, so you have to figure out a way to do it yourself.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Microsoft has about $35 Billion in the bank. At $2,510,800 per day, that works out to about 38 years with its current cash. I'm thinking that the EU might want to up the fine if they want Microsoft to take them seriously.
Spread your FUD elsewhere. They are fining them what the law allows for the same crime the US just ruled them failing to comply with their punishment for. Are you claiming the US is biased against MS too?
What are you preparing. You're always preparing. Just go!
Gates can give every Slashdot user $1000 and not feel it. $2.5 Mil isn't going to get his attention. He'll put it down as the cost of doing business in Europe.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Microsoft has about $35 Billion in the bank.
MS is not as financially well off as many might think. Sure $35 billion is a lot of money, but MS's expenses are about $9 billion a year. All it would take is 4 unprofitable years and that cash is gone. Not likely but not impossible.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I guess I'm looking for trouble by saying this on Slashdot, but I think the EU's reasoning on this issue is faulty, and I think it's an old-fashioned money grab.
They're breaking the law. The US convicted them of it. The EU did too. So did several other nations. They have failed to comply with their punishment. If the EU does not act, they are stating to the world that they won't or can't enforce their own laws. For a fledgling organization like the EU, this would be devastating. If you convict someone of robbery and they escape from the prison instead of serving their time and then stroll into town and tell everyone they aren't going to accept the punishment since they don't want to, the law bloody well better act if they want to be taken seriously, ever.
Good thing I'm not in charge of Microsoft. Out of spite I'd have pulled up stakes of everything in the EU, save for a distribution warehouse.
Yeah, because you'd be fired and replaced within hours.
as per the other guy's math
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
If only there were another option; some kind of operating environment one could install on one's computer to do one's work. And maybe some other bits and pieces of software that could go with that environment that would still let one perform one's computer-centric duties.
If only there were some way we could get from beneath the crushing foot of this megacorporation and have the freedom to choose. To choose the programs that met our needs, our budgets, and our requirements.
Man, if only.
End the FUD
I think you have that a little wrong. It would take 4 years of no income at all. Even if Microsoft is unprofitable, that doesn't imply zero revenue.
Get my wallet!
And yes, they are willing to take a bath on a product if it will further this overarching goal. It made no economic sense to embed IE into the operating system.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
four words:
"Cost of doing business"
In the day and age of the internet, there is no way to localize the distribution of any API or source code. It would hit the 'net, and be everywhere. M$ would effectively be competing against their own products.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but I can't see them doing it. I see them planning their future finances around a $2.5x10^6 USD loss per day.
Out of spite I'd have pulled up stakes of everything in the EU, save for a distribution warehouse.
To what end? That's still a business presence in the EU, you'd still be doing business on EU soil, and so would still be liable.
In fact, at this point, I suspect it's too late anyway. The case has been heard, the court has decided, and MS lost. You can't generally (legally) escape punishment by doing a runner.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
"Microsoft is headquartered in the US. I don't think the EU has the authority to simply demand money from them."
Microsoft is a multi-national conglomerate doing business in many nations around the world. As such, they are requires to obey the laws and accept the sanctions imposed by every country or, in the case of the EU, group of countries they do business in.
"Sure, they can kick 'em out of the country, but MS should call their bluff."
Sure they should. Then the EU should simply impound all of MS's European assets, and strip them of all patent and copyright protection, thus allowing Europeans to install their new open source, free operating system quite legally under the laws of the EU.
When you grow up you'll realize that there are other countries, legal systems, and ways of looking at things than the US's. BTW, as I pointed out before, the EU is a GROUP of countries... your statement about "kick them out of the country" berely underscores your ignorance.
But thanks for playing.
They're breaking the law.
I love it how The Slashdot GroupThink questions the validitiy and constitutionality of laws such as the DMCA, copyright laws, IP laws, etc., but when it comes down to anti-trust laws, there is NO debate, whatsoever, and people such as yourself continually just parrot "They broke the law! They broke the law!". Nice.
Ok, so they fine MSFT 2.5 million per day. When do they have to pay up? What entity is responsible for making sure that payments are made? What happens if MSFT doesn't pay?
I'll believe it when I see it.
...but isn't it possible that the real problem is piss-poor programmers among the competition? One main argument given in the article is sub-par performance of third party applications on Microsoft server software. I'm not in the 'defend M$ at all costs' camp, but come on, let's not jump to conclusions here.
Government's view of the economy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving,regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.
...if you know what I mean. Even if an entity does no business in your country, you're (if I've got it right) compelled to enforce Berne-style "intellectual property" enforcement in your borders. Unless you want to be booted from WTO.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I said it makes economic sense to stay put. I said I would move Microsoft out of spite. By picking up stakes and limiting their presence, Microsoft would deprive the EU of a number of things, including a number of well-paying jobs.
It wouldn't be a smart move. Hence, "Out of spite".
But my friend, this IS a discussion!!! Ask everybody here and he will say to you that antitrust laws are good. (Everyone knows it. Take a diploma in economics or at least study some... you'll see why it is this way.) Antitrust laws are good and protect the comunity. There you have it.
It's not about how long it will take them to run out of money, it's whether it's more profitable to pay the fine or continue to break the law.
I assure you, Microsoft shareholders won't be saying "it's okay, we can last for years like this" to the Board of Directors, they'll be saying "why are we paying a billion dollars per year fine?"
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Microsoft has had to issue numerous press releases saying they can't figure out what the EU wants them to do, and that the EU is just punishing them for making such a great operating system. They've had to pay for numerous "independent" studies to prove that showing several million lines of unreadable source code is the same as documenting an API. Haven't they suffered enough?!?!
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
It's $2.5mil per day now, that can change to an unlimited amount should we decide it is continued willful non-compliance.
So MS, bring it on, Turkey needs some inward investment!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Thank for your recent letter. Regretfully, we must decline your offer of your special edition software and its license.
Apparently you are not aware of our country's recent legislation addressing software license rules. In order for a software company to legally sell ANY software in our country, it will now be required to provide, free of charge, a number of fully licensed copies of said software to the government, that number to be determined by the government and revised at the government's discretion.
(Having a monopoly sure sounds like fun. But writing your own laws is even more fun, we think!)
/* "Specialization is for insects." -Heinlein */
Well if you can come up with a good reason why the current anti-trust laws are broken/stupid etc then you might be able to change people's minds. It seems that most people here (except perhaps Microsoft fanboys) are happy with the way the law tries to stop Microsoft from causing too much havoc in the world.
On the other hand DMCA, patent laws, etc. seem to be broken in favour of big business. The same big businesses that control the government. I'm sure you can figure out what is wrong here.
They're breaking the law. The US convicted them of it. The EU did too. So did several other nations. They have failed to comply with their punishment. If the EU does not act, they are stating to the world that they won't or can't enforce their own laws.
What the rest of the world did or did not decide is irrelevant. What I disagree with is the "failed to comply" portion. After reading both sides (including those long-winded PDF submissions from both sides), I think the EU's original demands were unclear to the point of unusability, and that Microsoft, in this case, has actually strived to comply. I think the EU has made a game of making Microsoft "guess", and then saying, "BZZT! WRONG! We didn't mean that, but we're not going to clarify much either. Try again. Oh, and your time is up."
the kids aren't listening!
Be done with it already - fine them and move on as the threats aren't working. Now we'll see if the EU has the backbone to enforce their policies or not. That's the problem with making threats and not carrying out on them; sometimes it's not worth the threats and you'd be better served carrying out on your word.
Either way, SUPER-boring news!
BTW: it is "Oh mein Gott!" :-P
"isn't it possible that the real problem is piss-poor programmers"
... let the trolling begin.
No the problem is, as the article actually states that it is Microsoft wilfull witholding of information rather than any sub-par performance as you so misleadingly imply.
"Brussels also ordered Microsoft to provide rivals with enough information to develop software that could run as smoothly as its own on servers running Microsoft's Windows operating system."
--
Not to start a flame war...
sarlos (903082)
davecb5620@gmail.com
If only there were some way we could get from beneath the crushing foot of this megacorporation and have the freedom to choose. To choose the programs that met our needs, our budgets, and our requirements.
Don't forget games. Freedom of choice, within budget and all the latest games.
Oh, and hardware drivers for all modern hardware. Games, drivers and freedom.
And an mp3 player. Don't forget that either. And without having to touch the command line to register illegal repositories. That would be cool.
So to summarise: games, hardware drivers, a good mp3 player, no command line and not too expensive. That's what we need! So what's the choice again?
I'll probably be modded down for this...
What the rest of the world did or did not decide is irrelevant. What I disagree with is the "failed to comply" portion.
Then MS has only themselves to blame as they are the one who recommended and approved the person who has judged them as failing to comply. Since neither you nor I have seen the sealed documentation that has been provided, what makes you think you can better judge as to whether or not they complied than the expert MS picked who has read it?
If you want spite then we can ban your products from being sold in the EU. No skin off our nose.
Money grab, nah $2.5 mill is a drop in the Mediterranean to the EU
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
TFA didn't say it, but other sources do:
The fine will be applied retroactively from December 15th.
This means on July 12, they will need to pay 209 * 2.0M EUR = 418.000.000 EUR, or 524.339.200 USD. Following that initial payment, they will continue to pay 2 million EUR each day.
It doesn't state anywhere whether the fine applies only to business days, or also to weekends and holidays. I've assumed it also applies to weekends and holidays since the laws are just as applicable on these days as on any other day.
Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja!... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Well if you can come up with a good reason why the current anti-trust laws are broken/stupid etc then you might be able to change people's minds.
I only think the EU is wrong on the "failure to comply" decision. I don't know one way or the other about the validity of their anti-trust laws.
Don't tell me that you trust government data on a Windows system.
BTW some police forces in Europe are using Linux , if a cop can do it what about the average user ;)
I love it how The Slashdot GroupThink questions the validitiy and constitutionality of laws such as the DMCA, copyright laws, IP laws, etc., but when it comes down to anti-trust laws, there is NO debate, whatsoever, and people such as yourself continually just parrot "They broke the law! They broke the law!". Nice.
Why is it I have the feeling you're trolling? Maybe it is the obviously inflammatory remarks and generalizations accusing "Slashdot" as a whole of having some opinion. Or maybe you're just an idiot. I agree with some laws and disagree with others. There is no hypocrisy in that. If you have an argument as to why you think the antitrust laws being enforced are unethical, lets here it... but please, please, please make sure you actually understand the laws and their purpose rather than spewing out the uneducated, uncomprehending crap I hear so often from people here. At least make sure you are educated and have an informed viewpoint before making vocal assertions about it and making yourself look like an ignorant jackass.
How will the EU's infrastructure collaps when we don't have a software standard that "most of the world uses"? A bit contradictive don't you think?
Besides - ofcourse the EU have a software standard that complys with the rest of the computerized world. We have laws and regulations though and if you're doing business here you are expected to follow them.
I'm the same way, not a fan at all, but, I do wonder at what point, what would prevent MS from basically thumbing their nose at EU, and saying fine, we'll just withdraw all new products from you market...and if things got worse, just plain stop supporting the products currently out there in EU.
I would not guess it would be good for business, but, if MS has that much cash they're sitting on, and still can do business with the rest of the world...what would stop them from pulling this, and using that to leverage the EU into getting off their ass about this?
Sure, while it would seriously promote alternate OSes in EU, could the EU stand to have the carpet pulled out from under them in this manner considering how entrenched MS is in the world of computing..?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Perhaps the commission was expecting MS to produce proper documentation, rather than try to guess how close to useless they could get while still being in compliance.
- These characters were randomly selected.
Unfortunately, for most users, there isn't. If there were, a lot of us would be using it.
This is not intended to be a facetious reply, and I do appreciate the point you were trying to make. But right now, the only potential alternatives for most people are platforms based on MacOS or Linux. By the time you factor in the big name business applications for users at work, games and hardware limitations for users at home, the relatively high cost of Macs, and the relatively poor training and support available for most OSS, that pretty much rules out both for the vast majority of people who might switch away from Microsoft platforms given a reasonable alternative.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Microsoft has been screwing us with the price for years. I mean ... follow the price of every new version of Windows and it doubles in price each release for very little. The only reason they raise the price that much is because they KNOW people will pay the high prices for no real gain. Now, if any other business were to do the same thing people would scream price gouging and never buy ... but no .... it is for some reason different because its Microsoft.
... and bad business practices are why I do not like Microsoft. I mean, the Caldera vs Microsoft lawsuit in which microsoft caused FAKE error messages after it detected another version of dos ASIDE from MS DOS even there there was technically nothing wrong? If that does not scream crap business practice I dont know what does. It happened again recently where people complained the MSN web site looked like crap in Opera. Someone running linux found out that using wget to download the msn web site identifying itself as IE shows that the hiccups were on purpose the even THOSE web sites looked like crap in IE. Microsoft settled with Opera outside of court because of their deep pockets. Opera SHOULD have kept up the lawsuit.
.. but lets just pretend) and they tell all of the auto manufacturers that they will provide the Hemi engine FOR FREE to all of them. Now, because of their monopolistic presence, all of the companies dump EVERY OTHER engine manufacturer because of a) their name, and b) the free price ... then you would see LOTS of people and lots of states getting ready to sue Dodge. Primarily because the states and the government have a lot to gain from LOTS of other companies making competing engines. In this hypothetical example, Dodge would put the engine making industry in danger and you would see states and even other countries sue dodge.
That
Like it or not Microsoft is not the honest company you think they are and they should be fined harshly.
Lets say a company like Dodge (auto company) had a monopolistic influence over the auto industry (they dont
Yes, I hate Microsoft.
After all Microsoft established it's monopoly on a high quality OS (i.e., Windows) over the much inferior quality OSes like OS/2, AmigaOS, MacOS, *nix, ... ;->
I'll believe it when I see it, until then it is complete BS
why is Bill (Locutis) Gates still used to mark all Microsoft banter? He's gone, shouldn't we be making adolescent jokes about someone else now?
As much animosity as exists on /. towards MS, the EU seems to be a far greater evil than MS ever was/will be.
That's a reduction of a round 9 billion US dollars a year in revenues. The shareholders might (rightly) feel that allowing this to happen is NOT doing everything to maximise their value.
Personally I think this thing will never end. Now if the fine goes retroactive... If the fine comes to 2.5million dollars since the rulling if you loose, then maybe Microsoft will start to get annoyed with this. Otherwise it's just silly for Microsoft. They probably are spending more than that on lawyers just to make a point and not loose face. I believe that the rulling should hinder their monopoly some more. You have x months to comply or the retroactive fines will double in value. I believe that the old school windows classic appearance could be made open without much trouble after Vista... I'd actually like to see the fine follow the same rule as that tale of the old egyptian man and the checkers board. 1$ on the first and you double the previous value each new day.
Blind are we who do not know that we are blind. The world has been boring ever since I got here.
If Microsoft have their $35 billion invested in something that returns 3% annually they can keep paying the $2.5 million daily fine forever...
0 1 - just my two bits
Why is everyone so against microsoft. Didnt they give them a media player free version of windows? Doesnt Win amp run as good as media player does on windows? No matter what you say if microsoft withdrew all support and products from europe their would be some nasty consiquences. It would take some time for all servers and desktops to be tranistioned to linux. ITs not as fast as a process as you think. then would come trying to deal with the u.s and other countries that still use microsoft. It would be very bad if microsoft took everything out of Europe. For you video game junkies that would include the Xbox 360 I am starting to feel the EU is just trying to extort money out of microsoft. Microsoft has been giving them what they want from what I have seen and they still are asking for money.
Too bad there is none . There is something that comes close , and it might come even closer within 5 years or so , but the only reason to use at home would be if Vista would actually be the DRM filled memory-hoggin processor-crushing system that it is predicted to be .
My Starcraft 2 Blog
The US wants to protect its companies that it sees as strategic resource. They probably do not understand all the intricate issues related to Microsoft and see it as an "innovative" bleeding edge technology company that is an asset for the country's security and economic growth. Or maybe they have simply forgotten the economic repercussions of monopolies and how they cause economies to lose. Either way, it is clearly visible that in the wake of the government's failure to apply anti-monopoly laws, the relatively recently demonopolized AT&T (about 2 decades ago) is back to buy all of its separated baby bells. Many other big companies in the US are becoming increasingly bold against anti-monopoly laws, and mega purchases continue with the recent example of Oracle's acquisitions. Where this is going is uncertain, perhaps the government hopes to maintain the country's technological lead and is willing to look the other way when mega-mergers occur and monopolies grow. However, the economic theory is clear that monopolies will contribute to the slowing down of economic growth, or even become the cause of economic decline. Maybe this is more about government's priorities than seeing the Microsoft's issues one way or another.
Inside the Mind of Bill Gates...
... Oh we're not allowed? Why? ... Because everyone has our software? Yeah, so we want to make it better... Oh? Oh we're not allowed to make it better. Oh I see. Why?... Well, that's true. If we bundle programs with our software that customers would normally have to go out and get from other companies, it might out those companies out of business. But isn't that an essential part of Capitalism?... Not for us? Oh, alright then. Well, what about the 'calculator' or 'clock' or '? They're bundled too.. Oh? Oh you only sue us when the feature competes well with other software? So when the bundled app sucks, like say that firewall we tried, you don't mind letting us leave it in but when we put out a great, popular, free product you investigate and sue us?... Really. That actually seems kinda unfair. But as long as every software company is prohibited from bundling multiple... Oh? Oh, it's just us? So, not anyone else?... Nobody?... Well, that actually sounds kind of unfair.
If only there was a way for a monopolistic company to help out it's customers. I don't know, bundle important applications and functions with the software everyone's getting anyway. Like, I don't know, a web browser. Yeah, those are important. Oh and some kind of player for media.
Oh? What?
And we still get to be the whipping boy of the Internet for having terrible software?... Well, then. I quit.
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
If Microsoft is fined, their stock value will lower. And maybe it will continue to lower the more time they delay it. Eventually, they will have to finally release the documentation and competing products will arise.
Microsoft was just delaying the inevitable.
Games? Performance? Applications? No check.
Supporting a company that is doing every bit as much (or more) as MS to limit your freedom and lock you into their platform? Check.
"Apple has built a brand based on user and creator friendliness. They should not be permitted to bathe in the glow of helping creators and user-friendliness while propagating user-hostile technology like DRM."
If we are on that level of price, apps, games, performance and ease of use, you'd win with a common PC and Ubuntu anyways. Count in user freedom and there isn't even a contest anymore.
TNT kjh fdlgjkh afgve9 qiug kmnbv
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
You are right on. But I think there is an even bigger missed fault in that argument.
Paying the money would be way better for MS, than if it just chose to walk away from EU free and clear, although it's clear that they can't.
Imagine that they abandoned THAT MUCH market. IT abhors a vacuum as much as nature (unless it is a vacuum that is controlled by robots to clean their room in their mom's basement). If MS abandoned EU, it wouldn't just be losing sales, it would create a giant void that would be filled with competition, something that Microsoft has tried to control as much as possible all these years. With that kind of marketplace, those alternatives would mature very quickly, quickly enough to make very real threats to MS dominance in the US. MS needs Windows on every one of those European machines more than the EU needs MS.
Of course, as mentioned, anyone in Europe would be able to pirate Windows as much as they like if MS burned their bridges there.
From the article: It is one of the three main institutions governing the Union.
That's like saying the Presidency isn't the government, it's the presidency. However, sometimes the government is taken to mean just the executive branch and sometimes it it taken to mean all three branches of government.
Just let the market sort it out: do NOT grant companies protection for patents, copyrights, reverse engineering. Then the problem will solve itself.
Many people are against monopolies, including myself. In fact I think monopolies are one of the few areas where state intervention is needed in the economy. However, even most monpolies only come to life and continue to exist not because the state doesn't do something against them, but because the state SUPPORTS them. They are supported by laws regarding patent, copyright, trade restrictions (e.g. against imports) and lately even against reverse engineering. Without such harmfull state intervention in the market, not many monopolies would survive for long.
The EU need only abolish copyrights, and the problem shall be quickly solved.
I would not guess it would be good for business, but, if MS has that much cash they're sitting on, and still can do business with the rest of the world...what would stop them from pulling this, and using that to leverage the EU into getting off their ass about this?
A problem with this is that Europe is a big market for Microsoft. Then there's also the possibility other regions or countries can follow their lead. Brazil for instance has been getting into open source a lot recently and it's gaining in India as well. Take a look at MIT's Nicholas Negroponte and his $100 Laptop, part of a program to put a laptop in every child's lap. Something like this can be liability as well. If Microsoft doesn't try to work with programs like this, they could pull the carpet out from MS's feet.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If Microsoft gets pissed off, takes their marbles and goes home all those Europeans will be stuck having to run Linux on their PCs. As much as I like Linux, I don't see that working out very well. It's not like there's another product they can install on their PCs and run their current software. Wine works OK for a lot of applications but it's hit or miss, especially with games.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
it's a free market society. let company's do what they want and if the consumer (or whoever) doesn't like it - DON'T BUY IT! what microsoft should do is drop all support and sales of microsoft products to europe and then see how that feels.
The fine itself is relatively modest. But think of the knock-on effects that charging it will have.
The fine will inevitably hit Microsoft's profitability. That in turn will hit their stock price, as a company already struggling to increase profitability, whose stock is traded in a market already very cautious about the value of the US dollar and interest rates. If MS stock prices start to slide, then that will have three dramatic effects.
Firstly, the MS executives will suddenly become a lot poorer. BillG's fortune looks impressive, but it's electronic money, and much of it is tied to MS stock. Moreover, he can't take much of it out of MS, because doing so would send huge negative vibes through the market, which would itself hit the stock price further. The same goes for the other long-timers and big name execs.
Secondly, a lot of MS employees have pretty low salaries by industry standards, getting a significant amount of their compensation through stock options and the like. If the stock price tanks, it will take employee morale with it, and a lot of talented people's resumes are going to arrive at Google, Apple, Web 2.0 start-ups and other potentially more lucrative places within a week. Naturally, this in turn will do further damage to the company's market value.
Thirdly, the shareholders will be seriously pissed. That will result in a sell-off, lowering share prices still further. It may also result in executive heads rolling; big finance is not nearly as forgiving of executive blunders as it used to be, and there have been some high profile boardroom casualties in recent years.
In other words, if this snowball starts rolling, it's going to roll a long way, very possibly enough to bring down the whole company, and certainly enough to bring down a few executives and lose a lot of good people from the staff.
That is why the European judgement is a good one. It isn't, in itself, enough to sink Microsoft (and possibly tip the world economy into meltdown overnight). It is, however, enough to condemn them to death by a thousand cuts if they don't respond quickly. This is what is being missed by the people who have looked at their bank balance and concluded that they could last centuries just by paying the fines out of interest.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Seriously, it seems that the entire history of antitrust action against MS in the US and Europe has been a colossal waste of time and effort. All it has done is show that governments don't really have the teeth to cut into Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. I originally thought the DOJ action was going to curb MS, but it didn't.
The Clinton admin had MS on the run but with the change in admin's things changed. The Bush admin went easy, and basically let MS go free.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The EU is likely unwilling to push too hard for fear of invoking the wrath of the US government,
Like they bowed to Washington's decision to invade Iraq?
FalconShould there be a Law?
"Sure, while it would seriously promote alternate OSes in EU, could the EU stand to have the carpet pulled out from under them in this manner considering how entrenched MS is in the world of computing..?"
I agree that it would hurt with regard to new computer sales etc... however MS cannot stop existing installations from working. I also assume that should MS decide that they do not want to offer updates to existing software in the EU, while providing them for the rest of the world, that the EU would sanction "illegal" copies of said updates within the EU.
Also, and probably more importantly, if MS did this (I am gonna take my ball and go home!) do you think that would be soon forgotten in EU countries? At that point MS becomes more of an enemy to the EU computing world than simply an 800lb gorilla. I think that should MS follow through with pulling out of EU it will probably result in MS not ever being able to re-enter that market; not due to political/legal problems but because people would not forget the way they were shunned by MS while MS was trying to make a point. In other words, if MS pulls out of EU, they have to consider the consequences with one of the most likely being that they could never re-enter that market in a substantial way again.
Now before the MS apologists vent let me say a couple things. No, right now there is no equivilant replacement to MS. As a result, how long do you think it would be before either emulation (aka wine) was improved to the point of being transparent to the end user or how long before a lot of other software manufacturers start porting to Linux*? The EU has too many potential sales to ignore which most likely means that MS can no longer convince software houses to remain loyal to the MS world view of software.
*I say Linux because it is the most sensible alternative. OSX does not run on generic (aka non-Apple) i386 and there are too many machines in place already. The BSDs are behind Linux in compatibilty with hardware and the amount of software written for Linux. I cannot think of any other OS that even approaches the maturity of Linux at this point.
And I have little sympathy for Microsoft even so. This is one of those cases where someone has been taking the piss for years, everyone knows it, but no-one's been able to pin them according to the letter of the law and the processes in place. In such cases, the end result is often that the relevant authorities say "enough is enough" and deliberately make a draconian but effective over-reaction that leaves no scope for wriggle room. No, it's not "fair" in itself, but it's a self-inflicted wound caused by playing the system (in particular, effectively complying with the letter of the law but not its spirit) for an extended period. Think of it as the civil equivalent of "contempt of court".
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
And suddenly, a million MicroSerfs screamed as one....
The only thing a programmer hates worse than a pin-headed boss is documenting code...
Most people don't realize what a time-consuming and labor intensive task (proper) documentation can be. I imagine it must be quite a daunting task in this case if MS is offering source code instead of documentation and then taking this financial hit...
They might not have a choice deciding to pay or not.
Here in the US they are required as a publicly traded company to do what's best for the shareholders / owners. They'll have to do a comparison between paying the fines until some end point and the theoretical loss they would receive from complying. It is my understanding that complying would not cause losses to the company in any significant way; certainly not comparable to the fines.
Because Microsoft is a multi-national corporation the rules might be a bit different depending on the setup of the company but it seems hard to escape the fact that, being based in WA, the main company is US, publicly traded, and therefore subject to these laws. If they do not act appropriately, they could face lawsuits from shareholders who can claim dropping stock prices are a result of negligent business practices.
Tough spot to be in. I don't envy them. I do, however, look forward to seeing what comes of this.
Price??? When I bought my copy of Windows XP Professional at Office Max, I got a free printer, a free scanner, a crappy Digital camera, paper, ink and a buttload of ink. I sold that all on Ebay and made back 50% more than I paid, and I had a legit OS for once.
haha.
You are way off here. Europe is not just a 'Big Market' for Microsoft.
If MS was to make 2 mill a day in EU, but fined 2.5 mill a day, it would be best to just move out, right?
Or do you think that the loss of support for all of Europe might have a mass effect on the world market? These days most corporations have large divisions in Europe, or interact with counterparts in europe. If EU was forced to switch to anything but MS, large parts of the outside world would also.
Not to mention, that if an entire continent showed it was capable of being productive without the juggernaught that MS is, the rest of the world would soon follow the example.
And dont think that MS leaving EU would cause them to just callapse in onto themselves or something, just a big setback to start.
Of course, Microsoft knows thats not even an option, and it'll never happen.
What MS does not need right now, is for OSS/linux to flow into a market and be the main player. If Europe makes the leap to OSS, they will no doubt create loads of software companies. Some of these will be OSS, but I would guess that most will be closed. And most likely they will have no competition, but a HUGE market to sell to. At that time, the American companies will have no choice but to move into the Linux/OSS world. At that point, MS has lost not only a bit of business, but their monopoly. Game Over.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If I was selling an operating system, there would be some features that should be standard.
The ability to burn CD's
The ablilty to surf the web
The ability to listen and watch media files
A fire wall
Automatic updates
If I was selling an office suite, there would be some features that should be standard.
the ability to save to pdf
I could care less about choise, if you choose to do something else with the product after buy it. I don't care. At the same time, I am not going to gimp my product to force people to decide for themselfs.
I think the whole argument is a buntch of BS. There are so many things that Microsoft has done wrong that they should pay for. Offering a full featured OS is not one of them, thats one of the few things that they do correct.
Bundling software is not the problem, its how it has forced windows on you and the comunity and removed choices. They should be more willing to open up some things as a good citisen, but its there product.
It will tick me off the day that I get an OS and I have to go get all the features it should have.
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
I would love to hear an announcement from Microsoft along these lines:
"We hereby rescind the licenses for all Microsoft products currently in use in those countries that are members of the EU retroactively to February 29th, 2004. Additionally, all Microsoft software currently on retail shelves throughout the EU, are now considered pirated software. Furthermore, based on our records, we will immediately begin to file lawsuits against the millions of people who have now been illegally using our software for the past two years."
I'm not defending Microsoft, but an announcement like that would leave me absolutely hysterical.
Microsoft gets a surprisingly large percentage of its revenue from non-USA sources. "Shutting off Europe" would probably be a major impact to the bottom line, even if you ignore all of the contractual entanglements and legal problems it would cause.
The spiteful part of me wants it to happen anyway. My understanding is that the US anti-trust law attempts to protect individuals from harm, but that the EU rules attempt to protect businesses from "harm", as if every company has some intrinsic right to exist in-spite of non-performance.
I haven't found an article that really explains the EU position on the matter. It's easy to sit back and say "the EU won't stop until Microsoft never ships another feature again and discloses the sourcecode to everything it has shipped", but I'd like to think they have a more rational position than that.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
If MS takes their marbles and goes home, then people in the EU will be able to use windows for free. The government doesn't care about piracy unless a corporation is paying them to care. If MS leaves, nobody will stop people from just downloading windows and using it. Or even selling pirated windows on PCs.
Microsoft would have to be willing to:
- Forfeit any chance of entering the EU market ever again
- Forfeit any assets currently held within EU jurisdiction
- Risk serious litigation on the part of shareholders against both the company and the board who decided such a course was justified
- Alienate non-EU jurisdictions, basically telling governments around the world that you can't count on microsoft
Would never happen
l4h
Perparing? You're always preparing!! Just fine them!
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
its nothing more than a money grab, to MS 2.5 mill a day may be nothing, but to the EU? think of all the STUFF they could buy! It kinda reminds me of the whole Enron/WorldCom thing. Shareholders lose millions upon millions of dollars and its the government that recieves the money in fines...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I've got a great way they can do all that and STILL not bundle software in and anti-competetive manner:
Create a PC version of the XBOX Live Arcade for PCs, like steam (except not a platform, more of an online marketplace+) with a link in or about Add/Remove Programs (current windows UI sucks for an idea like this, but pretend add/remove programs isn't buried in a scary Control Panel) and stick all the Media Players and Calculators and web browsers and firewalls (beyond say minimal security settings just to keep stuff from attacking you in the interim) and provide Class Packages of software like Accessories package: Calander, Calculator, whatever Games Package, Media Package, Web Package and let customers have easy access to the free software you wish to provide in package form and individually, but allow other companies use similar technology to offer their own software (open API). Also provide version checking as part of the API, for automatic updates or update notices.
MS could also use this to sell software (like office) directly to the consumer over the internet.
Holy crap, that's downright sane! Am I wrong? Yeah I guess bundling all sorts of maybe useful crap with my OS is a better idea instead of prompting consumers to choose, or choose not to choose.
IT is stated in several articles that eu wants to repalce windows. The reason they are doing this is so that this new operating system will work with windows servers. They are not doing this so other programs can work on windows. get your facts straight. This is extortion. Why should microsoft have to create a competitor and put themselves out of business? Why dont you see this as wrong? Its like Nintendo being forced to make a console and giving it to sony to sell.
What is to stop MS from fighting back in some way? Maybe pulling all of their products from areas governed by this? I think that would sure shake things up a bit. I'm sure this will never happen but I think it might make a very strong point. MS provides something that millions of people need or at least think they need. How they got to be in the position they are in is pretty irrelevant at this point. They have a huge market share and if they really wanted to flex their corporate muscles, what could the Europeans do about it?
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
It seems pretty obvious to that MS is composed of a bunch of incompetents, they not only can't get stuff done on time, but they can't get stuff done with any useable measure of security.
But being an idiot does not make it not your fault. And if you are also being an ass, you deserve any punishment you get.
Lets say a company like Dodge (auto company) had a monopolistic influence over the auto industry (they dont .. but lets just pretend)
:)) What I mean is, in some cases, monopoly can eventually be good. Well, not in this case, that's for sure.
Well, it all depends... make that Bentley and I'm all for it
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
And lots of government agencies use AS/400s or similar. Just because a cop knows what keystrokes to hit to perform a license query doesn't mean that they know how to configure and administer a miniframe/mainframe system anymore than they would be able to figure out any aspect of this "Linux" thing. To them, it's a kiosk running some law enforcement data entry software. The underlying OS and architecture is 100% irrelevant.
While such a move would certainly hurt Microsoft a great deal. Think of the repercussions. Microsoft employs how many people in the EU? How many companies make money off of MS software? MS pulling out could cause a massive drop in the value of the Euro from all the side effects.
I don't think the EU can just ignore that.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
All it's needed are specifications. Nothing more.
A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
A corporation isn't legally obligated to do what's "best" for their shareholders, it's legally obligated to do what it's corporate charter sets out. Now most corporate charter's say something like "maximize profits" etc, but that isn't a legal requirement, witness Google's corporate charter and rather unique share model (basically the share's you can buy for whatever crazy amount they're selling for now don't really have much voting power, the founders kept the powerful shares to themselves).
But yes, MS isn't google, so MS shareholders would probably have grounds for litigation if the board did something so stupid to piss 1B/year of their (the shareholders) money away for no good reason.
l4h
You want games? Convince game companies it's worth their while to port. Perhaps design a sweet cross platform API and IDE that knocks the socks off of Visual Studio. Also convince people who use Linux that software needs to cost money, so that the sales are there. However when you lack a slick toolkit and the sales aren't there, don't be supprised if the games aren't either.
Drivers? Well this is 100% a Linux problem. MS could open up whatever they want and it wouldn't matter, driver ABIs are specificed by the OS. The #1 step to getting more drivers would be to stabalise the ABI and allow binary compatability. For good or ill, company want closed drivers. If you don't give them what they want, they may just blow you off.
MP3 player? Pay the license, just like every one else. MP3 is licensed via MPEG-LA, is a Reasonable And Non-Discriminitory license (meaning it's shall-issue to anyone with money and always the same price) and doesn't prevent source distributions. For a patent license it is a one time fee of $50,000 for an unlimited amount of decoders. For license + the right to use reference code, $60,000.
So basically, the main problems I see Linux having these days, are self-made. An MP3 deocder has nothing to do with MS at all. MS chose to pay the decoder fee, they've integrated it with Windows. However nobody in the Linux community seems interested in setting up something to get the money to pay out. The free as in speech ideology because free as in guy sleeping on my couch. With MP3 (unlike DVD) they aren't saying you can't do source distribution, on the contrary, source only distribution like LAME don't even need a license, they are just saying if you want to build it in to a working decoder or encoder, they want their money.
The only issue that could possibly be solved by MS being forced to change or open something is if they opened up the entire Win32 and DirectX code, perhaps a perfect Windows emulation layer could be developed. Of course one would have to ask how good an idea that is, seeing as you get all the bad with the good (spyware would run just fine now). All the other major issues? Well they aren't MS issues, they are Linux issues. Linux could get a stable ABI and could start working with driver makers to get a huge repository of Linux drivers. Linux distros could choose to pay license fees for things like MP3 and MPEG-4 and include players legally. Games could be ported to Linux if there were an easy, cross platform development tool that supplanted Visual Studio.
Really, I think most people need to stop wringing their hands about MS and just start worring about making their product better. Forget trying to make a clone of Windows, make a product that's much better than Windows and people will use it. Even as it stands now, it's not like Linux isn't finding widespread use, even if most of it is servers.
Sure, while it would seriously promote alternate OSes in EU, could the EU stand to have the carpet pulled out from under them in this manner considering how entrenched MS is in the world of computing..?
The EU would stand just fine. There would be a lot of grumbling from big business, to be sure, but within a year I guarantee you that they will develop Euro-Linux which would in time completely flatten MS on both sides of the pond. Remember, EU countries tend to have very high tax rates and are extremely protectionist--if MS really wants to play hard ball, I have a feeling Europe will do just fine. Transitioning will be a bit rough, but I'm sure that piracy will help a lot--in such a situation, I'm sure that EU authorities won't be in any big hurry to crack down on MS software piracy.
Microsoft may be a big, bad, successful company with a mighty war chest, but that doesn't mean they can take on an entire continent. Take a look at Ubuntu's latest release and tell me with a straight face that XP/2000 is really soooooo much better for business or personal use (other than heavy gaming.) It's easier to install than XP, and more stuff "just works" out of the box than on XP! (at least it does on all 5 of my machines)
Microsoft's biggest asset is momentum, and if they tried to strongarm the EU they'd be flushing that asset right down the toilet. Personally, I'm really really hoping that they try it.
the EU have been draging this out making it imposiable for MS to settle it.. i don't like alot of MS's pratices but here i am for them.. the EU is being very dirty.. and at this point i wish MS would just pull out and let them roll in the mud
The EU has given MS more than enough tyme! It has been more than a year and if MS can't meet the requirements lain out in that tyme there is something seriously wrong with MS. Especially when most of what they had to do was make available the APIs or whatever to allow interoperability.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Wow, MS pull out of half the world market? What have you been drinking? However, the fines are unlikely to start before Duke Vista Forever ships.
Oh well, what the hell...
I don't think you are seeing the bigger picture here. If Microsoft completely...COMPLETELY pulled out of the EU, quite a bit of damage would be done. They could for instance, disable access to MSN messenger from anyone located within the EU. They could also disable windows updates and critical updates. The first time someone finds a hole in some microsoft software and there is no patch, something bad will happen. They could also even post an update that stops microsoft products from working, or similar malice should they choose to do so.
i hope microsoft tell the EU to shove their "easy money" sceme, thats all the EU want, microsoft's money.
i dont see why windows cant bundle WMP or IE, yet its ok for every linux dist to bundle a media player, and a browser.
microsoft have already opened up documents for everything the EU wanted, the EU are just getting greedy and forcing microsoft to give up more.
portfolio
People want enriched OSes. They do not want an OS that is specified only as a kernel, with everything optional. To them an OS is a UI, and a web browser and so on. Linux isn't the Linux kernel, it's that + the shell tools + X + Gnome + Firefox and so on. Windows is hardly unique in specifying an OS in an enriched context. MacOS is the same way, as is Solaris.
Now the other side of this is that programs depend on the services the OS provides. They don't reinvent the wheel all the time, they use what's there. In the case of Media Player, you lose ALL media playback if you remove it, as happens in Windows XP N. The thing is the guts of Media Player aren't in the exe file, you can delete that if you want and it'll stop working, but media playback stays. You can replace it with Media Player Classic (OSS project) if you like. The actual guts are DirectShow, MS's media layer for Windows. Remove that and games can't play their cutscenes, pro audio plugins stop working (well DX ones at any rate), etc. Installing Quicktime or Real doesn't fix this. Why? They aren't media player replacements, never have been. They just play their own media, they can't actually provide media services to the OS and it's software. Quicktime does this on a Mac, but not on Windows.
That's the reason that these sort of things aren't uninstallable. Because removing them breaks shit, and they don't need the complaints. I mean at the ultimate level you don't actually NEED the Win32 subsystem. Windows 2k/XP are modular, you can add APIs to them. They actually ship with simple POSIX and OS/2 APIs (turned off). You could, with sufficient hacking, remove Win32 as well and use a different API. Of course since ALL the software is written on it, it would all stop functioning. Explorer, services, logon, etc. It would cease to be Windows in any meaningful capacity, other than the kernel.
I can fully support MS not wanting to remove parts of their OS that other programs use. To allow for the removal is just to invite a shitstorm for tech support. You'd have millions of people who either on their own volition or because of bad geek advice would decide they "Don't need all this MS crap" and would remove it. Then they'd scream at MS when their software failed to work.
They knew what the terms where and didn't keep to them - fighting back would be awfully childish and tarnish their PR at a time when it doesn't need it. Secondly, although Americans wouldn't think it, Europe is a damn big market, possibly even bigger than the US of A. Yes, it's made up of seperate entities but together we're an economic force to be reckoned with.
Posted as AC because I do occasional contract work for MS
I would just stop selling in Europe. Pull it all out. There would be quite a few people who wouldn't know what to do. They'd change their tune real quick. And just so you know, I am in no way a Microsoft supporter, I am all for Linux. This could help Linux.
Kernel Krunch - Part of a Complete OS
666 years huh... it's a wonder that number came up, isn't it?
+1 creative writing.
-]Phreak Out[-
Where might I find the information indicating that it was due to the "Bush Administration", as opposed to life-long government workers that keep their jobs even when the President swaps out? If the directive came from a Bush-insider, or at least a Bush appointee, then your insinuation has some theoretical founding. If, however, the lack of strong punishment was directed by a long-term bureaucrat, or a Clinton appointee, then I suggest that criticism should be placed on those actually responsible.
I don't mind a good critique, it's unfounded accusations I can't stand.
Meh, a real sig would take too long, and I have an MMORPG to play with....
But showing that they were prepared to scupper their own customer base due to spite would stop ANY business that had continuity plans from EVER using Microsoft products again. Simply because you couldn't trust them.
It would kill the company overnight.
Pulling out of Europe would also mean anyone that does a lot of business with Europe (read China, India, and many other places that don't rely solely on the US) would need compatibility with Europe too.. Which means they'd be introduced to non-MS products.
With Europe + rest of world (bar US, most likely) using non-MS products rather quickly, the US would soon find that to do business with the rest of the world, it'd have to be compliant with the non-MS standard that had arisen behind the world wide economy.
Which would loosen the grip of MS in the US, eventually making it irrelevant.
So, in other words, they could choose spite, and kill their whole company in a couple of years (while leaving a lot of pain in the wake for a short amount of time), or they can toe the line, open their API, and do what the EU asks, and then have to compete on innovation with the rest of the world. Which, with the brains in the MS research labs, I reckon they've got a good shot at doing. Like IBM, they'll be around for decades to come, but without the massive monopoly they have now.
If I were running the company, I know which option I'd choose.
To all the people smoking crack and spouting that Microsoft should pull out of Europe - as a whole we're the largest economy in the world (see European Union on WikiPedia).
Here's a choice tidbit for anyone too lazy to click:
If considered a single unit, the European Union has the largest economy in the world with a GDP of 12,427,413 million USD (2005)
I am NaN
Actually, I think I am seeing the bigger picture. If MS were to do such a thing as deny updates to their insecure products, do you think the EU would hesitate for one second to allow (if they didnt set them up themselves) independent (from MS) update servers? As far as disabling existing installations, that would be pretty ballsy even for MS. MS would incur the wrath of the WTO at a minimum; not to mention there are already (illegal) patches to bypass Windows authentication et al. In fact, should MS go that far, I believe that the EU would find a way to put all MS software into the public domain (in the EU) and even provide the patches to bypass any and all authentication. That is the worst scenario for MS; rather than just losing business in the EU, they have essentially removed any value at all from their own software. Who is going to pay for any kind of license from MS when it is perfectly legal to download and install a public domain version?
This is all very hypothetical of course because the chances of MS pulling out of the EU (and a substantial part of their bottom line) are pretty close to zero. Not to mention, should MS attempt any of the "coups" that you mention, that pretty much puts the last nail in the coffin with regard to *ever* returning to the EU to do business.
however MS cannot stop existing installations from working
You obviously haven't been reading the posts about Windows Update and WGA; they can, I suspect, break most anything they want.
people would not forget the way they were shunned by MS while MS was trying to make a point
Oh yes they can; unforunately, many people have a horrifyingly short memory for things.
"We hereby rescind the licenses for all Microsoft products currently in use in those countries that are members of the EU retroactively to February 29th, 2004. Additionally, all Microsoft software currently on retail shelves throughout the EU, are now considered pirated software. Furthermore, based on our records, we will immediately begin to file lawsuits against the millions of people who have now been illegally using our software for the past two years."
Then someone can turn around and accuse MS of selling pirated software and/or demand their money back.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"Take a look at Ubuntu's latest release and tell me with a straight face that XP/2000 is really soooooo much better for business or personal use (other than heavy gaming.) It's easier to install than XP, and more stuff "just works" out of the box than on XP! (at least it does on all 5 of my machines)"
None of that really matters to the consumer market. Until Ubuntu has the advertising budget that MS does, the flocks of sheep will continue to use Windows. Just like voting - people often vote for the candidate who they recognize the name of, not the best candidate.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Here's one who disagrees (after a fair amount formal and informal of study). The only justifiable use of anti-trust laws is to regulate government-created monopolies (the telcos, for example). They created that mess, it's only right that they should clean it up. For private, unsubsidized organizations, however, even potential competition is sufficient to avoid "market failure" over the long term. Sure, a few billion dollars in cash reserves can hold real competition off for a fair amount of time, even without the government's assistance, but those reserves must eventually be exhausted. In the meantime consumers benefit from the below-cost pricing and other marketing incentives. Besides bribing the government for increased regulation (raising the long-term legal and financial barriers to entry for the market), all of the efforts of the incumbent organization to hold off competition can only serve to gradually undermine the incumbent's position.
Take, for example, the practice of "dumping" a product on the market (selling it below cost to make competition unprofitable). This requires existing cash reserves, and it loses the company money over time (and is thus unsustainably over the long term). Additionally, a smart startup would use the opportunity to buy its competitor's products below cost, selling them at a profit once the incumbent's reserves are expended. Far from destroying the competition, the "monopoly's" efforts can serve only to ultimately strengthen their opponents position -- trading short-term monopoly gains for a long-term loss of market share. Similar principles apply to such "undesirable" monopoly practices as bundling, price-fixing, and horizontal and vertical market integration; none of these methods can save an inefficient company from competition in the end, and they can all be used by efficient producers (even monopolies) to the benefit of the consumers.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
The budget of the EU is >1% of the GDP of all the EU countries. And the combined GDP of all EU countries is slightly larger than that of the USA. Please at least a bit of information about the world before posting in a public and internationl forum and making a fool of yourself.
No wonder Bill gates wants to retire.
With all these lawsuits about everything i would take mt meager 100 billions dollars and get myself an island and make my own dosadi experiment.
How many different vendors of Windows is there, oh, just one? Can I check out the source code myself, no? oh, well, how about choosing my web browser at install time, no? my desktop? which calculator I want to use? clock, no, office suite, no, media player, no? How about my security app, can I choose which one I want to have at install time, no? So with Windows, I have to choose your desktop environment, your browser, your clock, your calculator, and can only install others after I use your browser to download it? Keep windows, I'll stick with Linux.
I got nuthin
Have you seen the delivery charges for getting Domino's Pizza over there, much less how much you have to tip to make sure it gets there warm? This is their pizza fund!
If Microsoft completely...COMPLETELY pulled out of the EU
We could all pirate Windows and there'd be noone to complain?
to all those embattled European software companies whose fabulous operating systems and really whizzo word processors and spreadsheets have been viciously kept down by the evil Microsoft. Hmm.
As a European tax-payer, do I get any of this windfall?
is a bit of a misnomer, because large corporations with divisions in Europe likely have access to MS products elsewhere - the original theory was that MS wouldn't sell products in Europe, not use them. Besides, just because a European business can't go down the street to pick up a copy of XP doesn't mean they can't get it - this is the Internet, dude. As far as switching to anything but MS, it's not as simple as that. The cost of researching alternatives that work for your business, tearing down existing infrastructure, replacing it with new infrastructure, and testing it extensively until it works is exponentially exorbitant the larger your company is. Not to mention that your average employee in a large corporation is a complete idiot when it comes to computers, and more resources would have to be spent retraining them. Businesses could switch, or they could pay extra to import software from elsewhere. The cost of doing business would go up, but if the cause was MS pulling out of Europe as a direct result of the EU imposing a fine, who are they really going to resent?
This is really a case of who blinks first.
Your analogy is completely wrong, because it ignores a very important point in this: interoperability.
You assume that each "wand" is self-sufficient and does not have to interact with other wands, from other suppliers. You assume that all wands do the same thing and are interchangeable. You assume that there are no people trying to get their wands (from different suppliers) to work together.
You also assume that everyone else is happy with Microsoft's behaviour. They're not. You assume the EU's intention is to steal money. It's not -- I wouldn't consider asking for documentation to allow competitors to work with Microsoft products as "blackmail", especially considering that Microsoft is a "de facto" monopoly.
So, please:
- RTFA
- get the facts straight
- choose an appropriate analogy
Telling a nice story which is a lie is still telling a lie. Maybe there should be some trolls in your tale.
Perhaps that would be the case, or perhaps people would simply recognize what many have already said - that the EU (much like other government throughout the world) don't have their peoples' best interests in mind. Seriously, regarding Media Player: if people know about alternatives they should likely know they can install them without problem; if they don't know about alternatives, well now they have an OS with a media player installed. To expect Microsoft to ship other players is absurd. Partnerships are between companies, not enforce (but perhaps prevented) by governments.
So MS pulls out of the EU market. This is a government we are talking about. You know, the ones who make and enforce copyrights? They would be free to rule that, as a punishment, Microsoft's copyrights are no longer valid in the EU.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Sure they could do all that, but that would tell the governments in the rest of the world that Microsoft really can't be trusted. Governmnets in many parts of the world are allready leaning towards Open Source to make sure that they can stay in control of their information structure. Microsoft doing something like this would be the final proof that these governments were right.
Once governments leave the windows business, large government contractors and their subcontractors will follow. This would hurt Microsoft much more than it would hurt EU. To EU it would mean one or two years with a lot of hazzle, while applications was wineified, ported to e.g. Linux, or replaced with software running on MacOS-X, To Microsoft it would mean the end of their dominance on the desktop world wide. In turn that would also mean that they would lose their grip on hardware venders, nobody is prepared to lose a big market like Europe just to ship products that only runs windows.
So, we can be quite sure that Microsoft will either pay their fines, or comply. There is really nothing to worry about.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
I would say Microsoft doesn't *like* to throw away a billion dollars a year on fines, but it certainly wouldn't put them out of business.
A billion dollars is about how much Microsoft spent every year on the XBox venture. If Microsoft was willing to pay a billion dollars last year to buy out the video game market, they certainly won't mind paying it next year as their tax for getting to freely continue committing illegal anticompetitive actions in the EU.
Yeah, I hope they do withdraw all their products. I am sure open source can fill the vacuum.THen MS$ would have no say in standards either, Yes!
Would this be Slashdot if we didn't?
This place would still be Slashdot, it just wouldn't be any fun at all without the conspiracy theories.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
True, but there are laws that regulate the prices of these types of monopolies. You'd better count them as owned by the government.
They created that mess, it's only right that they should clean it up. For private, unsubsidized organizations, however, even potential competition is sufficient to avoid "market failure" over the long term. Sure, a few billion dollars in cash reserves can hold real competition off for a fair amount of time, even without the government's assistance, but those reserves must eventually be exhausted. In the meantime consumers benefit from the below-cost pricing and other marketing incentives. Besides bribing the government for increased regulation (raising the long-term legal and financial barriers to entry for the market), all of the efforts of the incumbent organization to hold off competition can only serve to gradually undermine the incumbent's position.
I beg to differ... Actually, how do you think these kinds of monopolies come into existance? If you think about big businesses, you'll see that they have a lot of advantages over the small ones:
1st, advertisment is cheaper. MUCH cheaper.
2nd, they can dump prices for a substantial amount of time.
3rd, the government is usually afraid of big businesses going bankrupt (unemployment and so on), therefore in case of emergency they can call for support. It is not illegal or something, that is policy.
Take, for example, the practice of "dumping" a product on the market (selling it below cost to make competition unprofitable). This requires existing cash reserves, and it loses the company money over time (and is thus unsustainably over the long term). Additionally, a smart startup would use the opportunity to buy its competitor's products below cost, selling them at a profit once the incumbent's reserves are expended. Far from destroying the competition, the "monopoly's" efforts can serve only to ultimately strengthen their opponents position -- trading short-term monopoly gains for a long-term loss of market share. Similar principles apply to such "undesirable" monopoly practices as bundling, price-fixing, and horizontal and vertical market integration; none of these methods can save an inefficient company from competition in the end, and they can all be used by efficient producers (even monopolies) to the benefit of the consumers.
Monopolies try to preserve their state. That is natural. Everybody tries to do it. If left on their own, they can do it forever, because they have the money, therefore they have the power. And yet again, these kings of tactics hurt everyone but the competitor. They are illegal for monopolies, because the monopolies have the strength needed to lock the market. That is why the government have to intervene, not because it is "fair".
In a free country you are entitled to do everything that is not forbidden. There are thouhts put behind antitrust laws. If that is forbidden,do not underestimate the man that proposed the law. Take for example MS. They have a competition on search engines and browsers. If you allow them to "disable" Firefox and effectively prohibit Google.com, how can somebody call that unfair? What is fair? But it is anticompetitive. They are a monopoly. It is abuse of power, they are EXPLICITLY not allowed to do that. They must be punished. Being a monopoly is not the crime, nor is the tries to monopolize another marker. HOW YOU DO IT IS WHAT MATTERS!!!
Just show me a way to prevent MS from doing what I told you, that doesn't boil to one thing: they must not use their power for leverage on another marker.
There are many illegal activities of companies being prosecuted: for example - bundling for monopolies, FUD (if it can be proven), all kinds of deceipt, CEOs making profit from their company in the stock market (aren't ENRON executives in trial?). For all I know laws are passed so people can live better. If that is achieved through business, so be it. But, in the end, it is the PEOPLE that matter.
Lets say a company like Dodge (auto company) had a monopolistic influence over the auto industry (they dont .. but lets just pretend) and they tell all of the auto manufacturers that they will provide the Hemi engine FOR FREE to all of them. Now, because of their monopolistic presence, all of the companies dump EVERY OTHER engine manufacturer because of a) their name, and b) the free price ... then you would see LOTS of people and lots of states getting ready to sue Dodge.
Actually, that's a bad example, because just being a monopoly in and of itself is not illegal. Now, in your example, if Dodge made all other auto parts incompatible with their engine and used their monopoly to force all car owners to buy Dodge auto parts, this would be illegal, and a much closer analogy to the current MS case.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
How many different vendors of Windows is there, oh, just one?
.. Don't correct me punk..."
Um, contrasted with the many Mac vendors?
Can I check out the source code myself, no?
Can I check the Mac source code?
how about choosing my web browser at install time, no?
I assume Safari's still default too.
my desktop? which calculator I want to use? clock, no, office suite, no, media player, no?
OSX, OSX, OSX, OSX, OSX.
How about my security app, can I choose which one I want to have at install time, no?
Can I do that with a Mac? Can I? I really don't know? Can I? I'm fairly sure I can't, but I'd be glad to admit OSX allows me to pick from several different security applications during the install.
Keep windows, I'll stick with Linux.
And there's my main point. All these regulations are put in place, supposedly, to help the average customer. That's what all the laws used are meant to do. But these restrictions on Microsoft aren't helping anyone except competing companies. And while that could be beneficial to the average customer, it just doesn't seem to work out that way. Take Firefox, for example, it's better than IE (not that much better, but better.), is advertised on thousands of websites, works on all platforms, easy to use, and is free - but still hovers around 10% of the market share. If I put a bucket of apples on the sidewalk with a 'take one' sign, Id get better penetration that 10%.
Except for playing games, there's absolutely no reason for people to use anything Microsoft. Ever. That said, there's still millions of people using Windows for more than playing games. Why? It doesn't matter 'why?'. In a capitalist society the 'why' means nothing. It's the 'does' that matters. If you say that Linux is a viable alternative to windows for the average user, you're naive.
The average user doesn't know, and doesn't care about Linux. They don't want to compile their own source code. They don't want to be bothered with choosing every little piece of software. They just want that blinkin' box to show them the boobies and the spreadsheets. They want their OS to operate exactly as their used to. Have you ever tried to get an average user to mount a CD in Linux? To the average user having functional applications built in is beneficial. I can't imagine the complaints that Best Buy gets when someone brings home Windows-N and finds out they can't get on the Internet. "What do you mean I have to get my own brassiere?
I can't believe anyone, anyone, can say 'un-bundling IE and Media Player from Windows is beneficial to the average consumer' with a straight face.
Litigating Microsoft is something that should be done - but for the extortion and the theft - not bundling fucking media player. Fuck.
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
Microsoft is causing trouble faster than the courts even TRY to deal with it. The whole anti-trust thing in the US has come full circle by now, and similar issues have been raised in Korea etc. Meanwhile, the courts in each country drag their heals, ignoring what has happened around the world.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0009YD2L Q/qid=1151436258/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/203-2846940-7 714335
or is the API thing the main issue?
I think this shows the business world that the EU can't be trusted.
If the EU is just going to use this type of strong arm tactic every time they want something changed in Windows then there really isn't a point to doing business there. It reminds me of a mob movie, you either pay their protection money (opening up the source code and unbundling media player) or bad things will happen to you (2.5 mill a day in fines). It ends up being a choice between loosing control over your own business or loosing a market for that business.
I don't feel that pulling out of the EU is a good idea or even possible at the moment but if the EU continues to use this type of tactic, eventually it might be the right move.
Interestingly, and more fundamentally, Microsoft's assets exist only and precisely because sovereigns grant them...and their rights can be quashed within the EU as a matter of implicit state power
What sovereigns? First of all the Magna Carta was an English document that pertained only to England, not Europe as a whole (the UK is about 10% of the population of the EU), and second of all the Magna Carta has been almost entirely revoked, several times in fact.
What you are really trying to say is that if a company is in flagrant violation of the directives of sovereign governments, those governments can apply such sanctions as they see fit. If the company refuses to pay fines, company assets can be siezed in lieu of payment. Exactly like anywhere else in the world, including the united states. I have no idea where you are getting this "royalty owns everything, not like in the US" idea. Model of law they are working under, my arse.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Sounds like a good plan, until people complain that these things aren't bundled with the install and they have to go online after buying the damn disc (just like I did for Steam :) ). It's a no-win situation. Microsoft either gets critisised for having shitty products, or federally investigated for having good ones.
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
Microsoft being classified as a monopoly means they are treated differently, that is simply the way it is. Monopoly on desktops + using that monopoly to gain a foothold in other markets (in this case we are discussing media players, and web browsers, though the EU deal here is certain network APIs used for server lock in.) via bundling = abusive monopoly.
Apple is not a monopoly, therefore is treated differently, and as such is not breaking any laws in this area.
the nebulous cloud termed "Linux" may not be valid for most users, though Linspire might be an alternative for some.
Yeah but nobody is trying to wipe out MS. That would cause a whole lot of trouble. This is merely a punitive action. And if MS doesn't play with the other kids, it will go to 4 million a day, and 8 million a day, until they finally realise who pwns who.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Microsoft is the mafia boss running the protection racket, the OEM vendors are the shop owners, and the EU is the FBI coming in to tell Microsoft to just not set fire to business who don't buy into the 'insurance' plan. To be fair, I can see the point you're trying to make, but Microsoft would have had to have been playing fair and not abusing a monopoly position for them to be the shop owners paying protection money to EU mafia.
The european commission should have a draw every week to pick the fiscal number of a lucky european who would be entitled to keep 1 day of Microsoft fines.
Short answer: Wall Street.
Expanding a bit, MS can't just throw away that revenue from their EU sales. It will cause their stock to tank, killing their employee incentive schemes, wiping away their market cap, and making their cash reserves shrink away. It will cause a shareholder revolt and the forced resignation of the Board of Directors and possibly all C-level officers.
A multinational corporation of MS' size just can't gamble on revenue loss. Heck, most major corporations are too afraid to gamble on innovative ideas that might cause a minor shrinkage in revenue, MS being no exception. And the EU revenue is more than a minor part of MS' operations.
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Ahhhhhh that is a good point and closer to the MS case.
"I agree with some laws and disagree with others. There is no hypocrisy in that."
The hypocrisy is that in one case, your side uses the "They broke the law" argument as used as a final, end of discussion tactic, yet fail to allow such a tactic when it comes to anti-piracy laws and the like.
"If you have an argument as to why you think the antitrust laws being enforced are unethical, lets here it... "
There are many problems with anti-trust law. For one thing, the European version outright sucks. In the US, the antitrust laws are meant to "protect the consumer" (by providing healthy environment for competition). Before a company can be punished, it must be shown that the *consumer* has been harmed, not just that a competitor has been. But in Europe, the antitrust laws are meant to "protect competitors", regardless of whether consumers have been hurt. Indeed, if punishing a company helps a competitor but actually hurts consumers, the EU will still go through with the punishment. That is stupid.
The other problem with antitrust law is the ex-post-facto nature of it, whereby you can be accused of abusing your monopoly by actions that took place years before you were actually declared to have a monopoly. This means that before you're declared to have a monopoly in a certain market, you have to second-guess everything you do, for fear that a single person in a black robe *might* at some point in the future declare that you had a monopoly at some time in the past. You can't run a business that way, sorry.
Lastly, the EC itself is screwed up, as they provide no due process when coming to their decisions. You're not allowed to face your accusers and secret evidence is employed (that you can't refute, what with the being "secret" and all). (The EC refuses to provide the documentation on why their "expert" has found that the provided documentation, 500 hours of free support, and the actual source code are insufficient,so Microsoft has no way to cross-examine the "expert" nor any guidance on how to address the "expert"'s problems.) The EC has no proper court proceedings, no nothing. Kafka would be proud. Once the decision is made, you can appeal to a real court, but by then, the damage has been done.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Europe would just install any recent varient of Linux that accomplishes 100% of the requirements of an operating system.
MSFTs biggest issue now is that their entire OS business is built on the myth that nothing else will work. They can't afford for any mass market to become aware of Linux or for a single or multiple Linux distributions to achieve critical installed base (over a million regular users would do it).
I don't think they'll get called having a shitty product, just one you have to click a button and get. I also don't call simply bundling usefull tools a good product, a good product in my opinion would be one that works well, and efficiently. It would force them to compete on product merits, not on bundling skill which would improve the overall software climate if you ask me.
Disclaimer: I use Gentoo which already does this. Next to nothing is bundled, I just type a command and it installs what I want.
I hope you are being facetious and that my ironic-humor gene is acting up.
According to MSFT's most recent 10-K filing with the SEC, they derive just over 32% of their $40 Billion (with a B) in revenue from outside the U.S. Split that between Europe and Asia (yes, I know that Australia, Africa and South America are populated continents as well, and that Canada isn't part of the U.S. -> blah blah blah) and you are talking about a $6 billion haircut to revenue.
Yeah. I'm sure they are discussing that option right now....
Insert witty comment *here*. I'm fresh out of wit...
Here's one who disagrees (after a fair amount formal and informal of study).
I think you might need to hit the books again on this issue.
The only justifiable use of anti-trust laws is to regulate government-created monopolies (the telcos, for example). They created that mess, it's only right that they should clean it up. For private, unsubsidized organizations, however, even potential competition is sufficient to avoid "market failure" over the long term.
I fundamentally disagree with this. Market models and historical examples show that this is just not true.
Sure, a few billion dollars in cash reserves can hold real competition off for a fair amount of time, even without the government's assistance, but those reserves must eventually be exhausted.
You're missing the point. Monopolies allow companies to gain money disproportionate to the amount of work they do. Unregulated, this applies to every market they abusively enter and allows them to extend one monopoly into many. They don't lose money by abusing a monopoly, they gain it.
In the meantime consumers benefit from the below-cost pricing and other marketing incentives.
You're talking about dumping, but dumping only lasts as long as there is a competitor and then moves on to price gouging to compensate while customers have no other options. You're assuming enough people will force them to use dumping over and over again, knowing that most of them will fail and go out of business, to deplete their monetary reserves. This is not the way business works and dumping is only one of many abuses.
Besides bribing the government for increased regulation (raising the long-term legal and financial barriers to entry for the market), all of the efforts of the incumbent organization to hold off competition can only serve to gradually undermine the incumbent's position.
MS bundled IE with Windows. Now they have two monopolies instead of one and it is very, very hard to attack them in the application space since they cut off the Web as a platform. The only reason anyone has any potential to do so is because of regulation. How has this weakened them in the long-term?
Similar principles apply to such "undesirable" monopoly practices as bundling, price-fixing, and horizontal and vertical market integration; none of these methods can save an inefficient company from competition in the end, and they can all be used by efficient producers (even monopolies) to the benefit of the consumers.
How do bundling and tying weaken a monopoly in the long term? They bring the monopoly additional monopolies to exploit and, sans regulation, guarantee growth into new markets and eventual domination of them until checked by another monopoly. Please explain how you think an unregulated monopoly using bundling and tying would weaken themselves over time due to unregulated market forces.
Or, perhaps their is no "proper documentation" that would satisfy the EU. They don't *want* to be satisfied because they want their payday.
Why does the EU refuse to say what's wrong with the documentation that's been provided so far? Documentation of APIs is an interactive process. An entity provides documentation, developers give feedback as to its shortcomings, the entity responds by updating the documentation accordingly, and so on. I've seen both Apple's and Microsoft's api documentation evolve over the years, as they're updated/corrected to make things clearer, in response to feedback from the devs.
The EU refused to provide such feedback, so there's no clear way for Microsoft to know what the problem is.
Here's what's happened so far:
MS: Here's the documentation you asked for.
EU: It sucks.
MS: What's wrong with it?
EU: That's for us to know and for you to find out.
MS: Whatever... Here, we'll provide 500 free hours of tech support for any dev that doesn't understand the documentation.
EU: Not good enough.
MS: OK, we'll here's the source code too.
EU: Not good enough.
MS: If you tell us what's wrong with the original documentation, we'll address the problems.
EU: Not good enough, prepare to be fined, suckers!!
It's sad that slashdot, generally speaking, supports such government shakedowns. Be careful what you wish for; you think that the EU isn't salivating over Google's cash? Or Red Hat's? Or Apple's? Or that of any of the companies that you guys have wet dreams about? Once you open the door to government shakedowns with no clear way for the persecuted company to comply, you open the door for everyone.
And why is WMP still an issue? Microsoft already complied with the WMP ruling, by providing XP N (which consumers soundly rejected). And Microsoft already settled its differences with Real, so why is the EU still pushing that issue? Oh, that's right, the chance to get fat off of levying hefty fines.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
If Microsoft were to withdraw from the EU, the net effect would be that that network effect would disappear. As people are forced to use GNU/Linux and other alternatives, interoperability would be forced.
There is practically no downside for the EU in Microsoft withdrawing. There is every downside for Microsoft. They cannot threaten this.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Well, some facts:
* either you choose to buy MS's stuff, or you don't
I don't; I used Linux and several BSDs for a while, and own a Mac for a while now.
* just because one system doesn't interoperate out of the box with another one, doesn't give anybody else the right to point a gun to their ears and force them. There's something called third-party tools, that can be used for instance to mount a Linux FS on Windows, or maybe to do the opposite. But if you don't like that MS doesn't open their NTFS or SMB, then just don't use it.
* the EU's intention might not be to steal money (even though it steals money from its citizens to feed useless eurocrats), but it's only using the thread of a fine to blackmail MS to open up its information
(you don't think it's blackmail? what is it then?)
* it doesn't matter if HTTP, or Windows, or anything else is a de-facto monopoly. *Everybody* out there can use something else, and for those very few areas where there is no software for Unix/X11 or the Mac, it wouldn't be too hard to port a Windows program to use the other GUI or IPC/I/O libraries instead.
I've used other OSes for quite a while without any problems, and if there were any serious demand for them, there *would* be software written for those systems. Just because people want to keep their Photoshop and Age of Empires doesn't mean there's no alternative.
Argh, I meant "threat of a fine" of course, not thread.
And to add something to the not-so-open NTFS & co: Windows has sockets, so it's perfectly possible to write something that uses the Windows API and the socket API to transfer just ANYTHING you like to a Unix or other system. No problems there at all. Some goes for disks: write *anything* to disk, and read it in on Unix again.
I don't see a moral dilemma with it.
DMCA, copyright and patent laws are broken to some extent. Anti trust laws are only broken in that they should be harsher.
There is no conflict here, most reasonable disinterested people oppose bad laws and mostly accept reasonable ones.
Slashdot may be guilty of some groupthink, but I doubt that. There are simply too many different people here. That's a good thing, I'd hate to see everyone agree with me whole day, where would I go for a good discussion?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Um, I think you missed the point. The driving force behind the switch wouldn't be advertising--it would be MS pulling out of Europe. I'm sure plenty of people and businesses would continue using outdated or pirated copies of Windows... at least at first. But very large corps and government would immediately turn to Linux or possibly Apple, the only legal options availible, and the people who had always simply used their preinstalled OEM copy of Windows would inevitably migrate to a preinstalled OEM copy of Linux.
I love it how The Slashdot GroupThink questions the validitiy and constitutionality of laws such as the DMCA, copyright laws, IP laws, etc., but when it comes down to anti-trust laws, there is NO debate, whatsoever, and people such as yourself continually just parrot "They broke the law! They broke the law!". Nice.
/., there was plenty of debate. In the end, other than the completely die-hard Laisse-Faire capitalists who believe the "invisible hand" will always fix everything eventually (even if it sucks a lot in the meantime), most people saw that monopolies were a broken corner case of capitalism, and if they began to abuse their unique position to damage the market for their own gain then they needed to be stopped.
I love how you frame your troll by pretending to not have ever engaged in debate on anti-trust law right here on slashdot yourself, you lame-ass liar.
For the edification of those who aren't merely pretending to be ignorant of said debates, they have happened constantly and in particular in the years immediately after the start of the U.S. anti-trust case. From the anarcho-capitalist "libertarian" to the socialist Euro-geeks, both of whom had found an entertaining home on
It all goes back to the very first post regarding the filing of the DOJ's case against MS, which began: "In a move that only surprised those who think monopolies are a good thing..."
But what's funny is that we could debate forever on the validity of the DMCA or other IP laws, but that would have no impact on whether the poor slob convicted received their punishment. Only in the cases like Microsoft is avoiding paying levied fines even an option.
The enemies of Democracy are
OSX does not run on generic (aka non-Apple) i386 and there are too many machines in place already.
But OS X *could* run on generic i386 hardware if Apple chose to remove the Apple-only hardware restrictions on OS X within the European market. If something happened that prevented MS from selling Windows in Europe, perhaps Apple would release an "open" version of OS X and try to fill the "Windows vacuum"?
This would be especially useful if the rumored Windows binary compatibility layer within OS X 10.5 turns out to be more than just a rumor. Just a thought.
If the directive came from a Bush-insider, or at least a Bush appointee, then your insinuation has some theoretical founding.
Congresscritters wanted it.
There have been allegations of White House involvement but nothing was ever proven.
It is worth noting that the settlement came hard on the heels of the 9/11 attacks. The DOJ likely wanted to shift focus and get rid of a case that had been tying them down for years. Likely Ashcroft reasoned that if the American public perceived the DOJ as being hung up on a fight between software companies when they should be going after terrorists, he'd be strung up by his gonads.
Granted, before 9/11 the Bush DOJ was already signalling that it was interested in a settlement. By many accounts, removal of the charges related to bundling killed any hope of nailing MS to the wall.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The Cocoa API is largely OpenStep, and yes there are multiple vendors of OpenStep implementations. So in many cases, a publisher can port an application written for the Mac OS X flavor of OpenStep to any other flavor (such as GNUstep) with little difficulty.
Darwin is free. What corresponding part of Microsoft Windows is free?
True, but unlike in KDE and Windows, Safari isn't also the file browser, meaning that one can in fact completely disable it.
But the EU has an interest in making sure that EU tax euros go to software companies that pay tax back to EU member states, not to the United States of America and the State of Washington.
"It reminds me of a mob movie, you either pay their protection money (opening up the source code and unbundling media player) or bad things will happen to you (2.5 mill a day in fines)."
No one has asked that MS open *ANY* source code. Please do not spread such FUD; or are you astroturfing? The reason I ask is that this is the *exact* argument MS has been known to use.
I think the EU's reasoning on this issue is faulty, and I think it's an old-fashioned money grab.
On the first: MS has (again) been convicted in a court case.
On the second: Maybe, but then again so is speeding tickets and parking fines. When the crime doesn't warrant throwing someone in jail, or you can't because the "someone" is a corporation, then the only thing left is fines, because in the western world we abandoned the whip, cutting-off-of-fingers and other fun punishments a few centuries ago.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
But you have to provide separate localized versions for a dozen languages in Europe as opposed to just English for the United States and possibly French and Spanish if you want to expand into the northeast or southwest parts of the continent respectively. The number of people-per-language tends higher in North America than in Europe.
"oops, bad math, they can hold out for 666 years based on their market value, forever if you assume they get 4% interest."
You probably forgot to include all of MS' operating costs in that estimate, especially employee salaries and wages. Throw in all the costs of running a huge corporation, and the number of years Microsoft can hold out goes down quite a bit. Add in the likelihood of the fines going way up if Microsoft continues to not comply, and Microsoft will eventually have to either comply or completely pull out of the EU. If the latter, throw in the loss of all of Microsoft's income (Windows + Office) from the EU, and the EU action becomes very significant.
Then the final stroke: development houses around the world find a ripe market for their software on a non-MS system. With Windows no longer having a lock on big software titles, Microsoft's monopoly goes away. Without a monopoly to sustain it, Microsoft goes away.
Microsoft's problem isn't JUST a daily fine. It's the domino effect that follows that would kill the company.
I mean, it's not like the EU litigators have accomplished anything of measurable value in their legal pugilism, have they? They managed to require MS to produce a version of windows without Media Player, which nobody bought- presumably, that's a decent measure of nobody wanting it in the first place. Sure, the /. crowd loves to see big bad Microsoft taking its licks in court, but to what end? What is produced as a result of this process that is of measurable value?
This time it's about 'interoperability specs'. Who wants to wager that these, too, will be a curiousity that nobody will want or use?
Somehow, I don't think the courts are the place to get what we really want- unless what we really want is a tax on Microsoft, in the form of legal requirements that they produce products nobody wants, at their expense, and that they pay punitive fines in addition for their cheekiness in appealing, for good measure.
what would prevent MS from basically thumbing their nose at EU, and saying fine, we'll just withdraw all new products from you market
Because the EU is the world's largest market, far surpassing the US or any other. Pulling out of the EU would mean losing a third or more of your revenue, and that's not something you can tell your investors.
As a publicly traded company, even one with deep pockets, the resulting stock crash could wipe them out (there are ways to go bancrupt even with cash in the bank).
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
There are a few things I must insist on.
First, you keep claiming there are alternatives to Microsoft. Well, are there? I mean, if you replace all the systems in an entire institution, then sure. That requires that you have the authority to change the whole system. And what if you don't? What if you have to interact with other entities with Microsoft software? You seem to be assuming you wouldn't have to interact with Windows, ever. But Windows is everywhere, that is why MS's size is relevant in this.
Simply put, the alternatives if you want to interact with undocumented Windows software are:
- replace everything Microsoft
- reverse-engineer and mimic (e.g. Samba): this is dangerous, esp. with software patents, copyrights etc.
- write specialized software for Windows that will make it interact with the other ones (may not even be possible, because some of these things, like logons, are tightly integrated into the OS)
Now, the problem with Microsoft being so big is that *there will always be MS systems* (until they go bankrupt anyway). You *cannot*, for one second, assume that you won't have to interact with Windows. And I don't mean sockets and all that, we're talking about higher-level things here: unified logons, accessing filesystems (especially NTFS), Folder and Document shares (which Samba, at the cost of dubious legality, is able to emulate). You can't just say "but we've got sockets!". It's got nothing to do with two machines being able to talk through a network; it has to do with a machine being able to access certain core functionality of an operating system which is essencial to businesses, and is not programable in Windows!
And finally, once again, it is *not* extorsion! Governments have the obligation of protecting their citizens and companies, and the reasoning here is that Microsoft is abusing their main position in the market by not allowing anyone to interact with them, thus not allowing anyone to get a foothold in their market. The EU merely asks for documentation on how to interact with Windows, that's *it*. It has the right to ask for that if the courts believe that the monopolist is abusing its position by not revealing this, which just about everyone agrees! These fines are no more of an extorsion than fines for you parking in a forbidden space: your're doing something you shouldn't, so you get fined. Of course if they were to impose a 10 euro fine on MS it wouldn't be of much effect, now would it?
Summing it up:
- If nothing can interact with these features, then there are no alternatives if you have to communicate with Windows machines
- The EU are just asking for documentation on unified login, NTFS, Windows Shares and the likes. No code. No secrets. Just docs.
- MS is abusing their position by not allowing anyone in: as there is Windows everywhere, that becomes a problem.
- MS *is*, by the economic definition in European common law, a monopoly, and there are specific laws that monopolies must follow
- The EU, like any government, has the authority to fine for violation of laws. MS was found, by a court of Law, to be in violation. It must therefore pay. Just like you'd pay a parking ticket.
I hope I made it clearer this time.
Hmm..can you back that up with some links? I'd think the US would be by far the largest market. Even other poster earlier in this thread stated from his sources that EU was part of the 32% of revenue that MS got from outside the US....so it is a % or 32% I think...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"I say Linux because it is the most sensible alternative"
Since when has sense had anything to do with this? In the end, mom and pop don't want to re-learn this. Even most kids in school don't want to re-learn another operating system, they just want something that works in a way they can relate to. If it came down to it in the short -> 5 year run and windows was out the door, it would definitely be Mac as the replacement. Little learning curve regardless of what's under hood, because their UI is far more intuitive. *NIX is still waddling behind in usability for the average joe and shows very slow progress into really changing it.
Your best bet for *NIX is in Africa. What with the technological push to put laptops into their hands with stripped down *nix environments, that's a whole continent ready to mass the market in maybe 20-30 years.
Solaris x86 is at least as mature as Linux.
OpenSolaris with Ubuntu distribution on it - called NextentaOS is in alpha state and works quite well.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Well, imagine - EU insisting that companies follow the laws, and is not afraid of showing some muscles to make sure they will.
If anything, that's a reason to *join* the EU, not to pull out.
What would you prefer the EU to do? To say "well, uh... OK, so... you're not playing by the rules, but we can't afford a fight, so.. OK, so be it."?
From the article
"Brussels also ordered Microsoft to provide rivals with enough information to develop software that could run as smoothly as its own on servers running Microsoft's Windows operating system."
I believe the EU has asked for all the information necessary to emulate and reproduce windows networking code. so either Microsoft has to just give the source code of they have to write an all new document that explains every little thing that the networking code does and how it is executed (might as well be source code).
That doesn't work with "intellectual property" products, since there's no practical way for Microsoft to stop the distribution of the product into the EU if the government(s) don't cooperate.
If they (MS) tried to do something like removing all their product from the EU, the EU could simply declare anything produced by Microsoft to be in the "public domain", and a whole service industry would grow up over importing, supporting & customizing Microsoft products, without having to bother with any restrictions by Microsoft.
Of course, this would be an utterly extreme course of action for both Microsoft & the EU government(s) (it would probably spark a trade war of some kind at the very least), but there is no way that companies whose business models depend on "intellectual property" can win if the host government(s) refuse to support their IP rights.
in this case I'm going to lower my standards and say that EU should go screw itself. This is reason #1, 2 and 3 that the EU will never be able to compete effectively in the world economy - despite their wierd protectionist/subsidization policies (think Airbus). MSFT is not my darling but I truly believe they've bent over backwards to meet their wierd demands. I hope MSFT can find a way to find saner people in the EU to eventually overturn this stupid garbage. Respectfully, A normally Europe-loving democrat who is far from a fan-boy of big business
I think it's funny how Gates officially left not a week ago, and now this.. (I know, this has been in the works for a couple years now, but the timing is rather suspicious)
No, it's $912,500,000 a year in fines. I would say Microsoft doesn't *like* to throw away a billion dollars a year on fines, but it certainly wouldn't put them out of business.
This will come straight out of the consumer's pocket. Watch the price of Windows and Office go up. What's more Microsoft will not be able to apply increases only to EU customers as this would be too blatant. The EU just managed a far reaching tax on every person on the planet that buys a new Microsoft product in the next few years.
Everyone here seems to be implying this is about putting a megacorp in its place. It's not. It's about greed, money and corruption that doesn't favour Microsoft.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I think he means the EU as a potential market is higher than the US. The combined economies of the EU outweigh the US (the last figure I saw had the EU ~10% larger, but that was before we had more countries join the EU). It's probably on the order of 50% larger now.
As far as MS revenue goes, the EU accounts for ~20% according to a business-week article I read a few weeks ago.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
You forgot to mention the part about the gnome making
his wands such that if you couldnt use his wands and
anyone else's wands.
emt 377 emt 4
And that, if you got rid of states, the market would "sort it out".
Unfortunately, market competition sometimes leads towards a monopoly/oligopoly situation, as successful entities either gobble up failed competitors or buy out the less successful.
This applies to both business & States
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
If they were to give to source code, it would have to be well documentated to comply with the ruling, undocumented source code would not be very useful, unless the sole intention was to simply recompile it.
All that is needed is full documentation of all the functions of their software and how to interact with it. Microsoft should already have this stuff in some form for their own programmers to refer to.
I find this all too funny. Wonder who's OS the EU and affiliates use. MICROSOFT XP of course!!!! Who really cares if XP comes preloaded with a media player. Apple's OSX comes with one, and so does every other OS on the planet pretty much. If you want to use another app, just DL it. Itunes is just a click away. 2.5 million dollars a day, thats ridiculous. They're trying to get easy money. Screw them.
Copyright laws are international, in terms that if the EU invalidated the MS copyrights than it would go to the WTO, not to mention the national back lash in america, with some poor european company loosing all of their copyrights. All in all we are talking abut Microsoft here, they will not pull out of europe, europe will fine them and they will pay. It is in microsoft's best interest to pay the fine and go about business as normal, especially in a charged environment of today.
Microsoft has three options for europe, in effect, and my guess is that they will pay the fine or apeal it until Vista comes out:
1 - Release a stripped down version of windows xp along side a full blown version.
2 - Release 9 different version of vista (as apposed to the 7 provided in the US) with one called "Lite", than they can go to the court and say "there you go". Or release a more modular version of windows where the installed OS has no media player, and you (the user) may download it off the web through the update program or goto www.somefancyplayer.com and download your blend.
3 - Incorporate other company's media players (and we all know how great Real Player is (one of the plaintiffs))
I would reather see a windows distriubtion much like gentoo, where you just download/install/emerge/winmerge the programs you want instead of getting everything. You just fill in the questions of what you want and poof you got it. The problem with xp is that its old as hell and about to the replaced, and when they made it they followed the macosx platform and reduced the questions asked during the install to locality info and not so software-centric. Than again RealNetworks needs this, since the last time they were in the spot light was when they were the only good streaming codec around. Now you will be hard pressed to find a bloody rm file. I believe in the gentoo-linux model (even though i use suse, damn install times kill me (and where is this performance boost anyway?)) where you pick what you want.
The nice part is that it doesn't have to be as 313373d as emerge is, go web-based with some funky flash app and than its easy to give users a choice. Than the question of the portal comes into effect, but that should be easier to win in court. Eitherway I highly doubt microsoft will further limit their market and drag their name through mud, and I further doubt that Europe would even give a rats ass much less break international copyright agreements just because microsoft took its toys and went home. Europe would risk senctions like no other through the WTO (got to love globilization), and microsoft would fore-go a huge chunk of money.
Not to mention its just plain silly.
Removing products from the WEU would be certain death for MS. Almost certainly there would be a big software industry in the EU that would compete world wide with MS. The new EU company could very well win most of Europe (duh) and China, India and so on, making MS at best. No, MS's best stategy would be to make an EU edition Windowswith a different internal interface and publish the specs to that. Because if they sold the same product in the US and EU and published the specs for the EU product that would allow competition in the US. I'll bet after the fine is imposed they will offer specs for an EU edition of Windows. But they will do everything they can to delay the fine only giving in after the EU finaly has to go in an freeze their European bank account and take the fine by force
Ah. I see. So because some random foreigner disagrees with what our laws are, we ought to let people break them ? I tell you what, STFU. Thankyou, that's a lot better.
Some laws for you to ponder:
Now I personally think most of the above are complete nonsense, but hell, they're your laws and you've every right to them. Do us the same courtesy.
It seems to me that having businesses die just because the (presumably richer, since it has a monopoly) company can manipulate public opinion more easily is a bad thing. It's an easier and more-specific task to demonstrate that a rival companies illegal actions have harmed oneself. So, consumers are protected indirectly by having more companies stick around - it sounds as though you're complaining that the bar for legal action is lower in the EU, if that's your complaint, take it and shove it.
I'm no lawyer, and I have no clue whether EU antitrust law is ex-post-facto, but given that it's different (and that making it ex-post-facto sounds absurd) I doubt it is. Sounds like an USA problem to me...
As for your last paragraph, it's just raving madness - the EU asked for specific things, MS did not provide them and tried to fob off the commission with something else. The EU employed an impartial expert to say "no, A is not the same as B". MS asked for the right to cross-examine, and the EU (rightly) told them to shove it - it was just more delaying tactics. Any fule know that A is not the same as B. All MS have to do is comply with the demands laid upon them. Simple.
(Constantly amazed by US arrogance, and yet the US people I live and work with are nothing like this. Thank [insert deity] for that!)
Well, my point is that it won't escalate that far. It's like MAD, MS knows Europe has the doomsday device, EU knows MS has the doomsday device, they both just play nice. Copyright laws are not international, in that any country can invalidate any copyright it wants to, and the Berne convention just means you have to treat copyrights in a certain way. No copyright, no problem. National laws still trump the WTO, too. Sure, there are sanctions, but there were trade wars before the WTO, this is just more of the same. Last I checked, the WTO doesn't have a standing army to enforce its decisions. A big megacorp still can't trump a powerful government when said government gets its back up. But there are repurcussions, that's why I called it "EU's Nuclear Option"
But you are right, likeliest scenario: MS pays and that's that.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No, it's the documentation of the interfaces and protocolls MS is supposed to publish (and keep up-to-date with further updates, of course), not the source code. Documentation, as somebody else pointed out, MS (hopefully) already has.
Now, the source code is the implementation of those protocolls. If MS manages to supply the market with the best implementation, MS will keep the market. If not, it will lose it (or at least some parts of it) to the competition.
On the other hand, if MS keeps their protocolls secret, changing them every now and then just so that the reverse engineering efforts of the competition get undermined, the quality of the implementation MS provides is largely of no importance, because there is no NEED for MS to improve it.
I am sure you see in which of the above two cases the consumer is a winner, and in which the consumer is just a silent cash-cow, forced to update from time to time, and with no chance to ever come out of being dependent on one (and only one) company.
Now again, what is your problem with the EU in this case?
Now IANAL, but if the EU has the legal standing to force MS to do anything, MS has the exact same legal standing to make the EU do what it wants too. The only reason they're playing nice at this point is because they still want those customers.
The way it looks to me is the EU is just mad they cant compete with microsoft products, so they want to force microsoft to give up it's secrets so they can make similar software. Also, why does nobody pay attention to the fact that quicktime is bundled with apple OS's? It's word for word the same issue with MS and WMP, but because MS is a higher profile target, they take all the flak.
After reading this article my thoughts wandered to Family Guy Season 5 Episode 11... go to 4:15 and imagine Dog = Microsoft and Stewie = EU ;-) For those who don't have it Dog owes Stewie some money, and when Dog says he needs more time to pay Stewie kicks the crap out of him, which is nice :-)
what the fuck? admins, ban this twat
And if content providers only provide WMF formatted content because they know that every (windows) user has that installed, the user is supposed to do what? Not use their computer? Microsoft was well underway to own the messenger for all electronic content, thereby owning our culture. Not bad that someone tries to stop that.
O rly? Even when it involves hiring a set of voice actors for each language version of a program? Not all programs can be localized just by replacing locale message files. And what about programs from startup developers, or does the publisher handle translations? How much does even a text-only translation cost, and what keywords would I use to research this information on Google?
Our (Dutch) windows clients/servers at work are on the same network, via VPN, and work together with the windows clients/servers from HQ in the US. How do you suppose this will interoperate when our EU boxes will use a different network protocol as their US brethren?
Which would possibly break the Berne Convention, getting the state kicked out of the WTO and unable to export its goods at affordable prices.
...and Macs and Open Source are gaining more and more ground! Yeaah!
It would also involve heavily commented and documented disassemblies of those proprietary programs being traded on what used to be warez sites.
Unless you try to create your own things but end up inadvertently duplicating someone else's things. This happens with independent reinvention in patent law and with subconscious copying (especially for music) in copyright law.
Are you drunk? What did I "lie" about, exactly? When did I say that I never debated about anti-trust shit on slashdot?
Besides, I really have never seen a MS "anti-trust" story in which more than a handful of brave individuals who invariable get modded down try to argue that "anti-monopoly" laws are wrong. Instead, the posts invariably ignore the fact that "anti-monopoly" laws are in fact, punishing a company for being too successful and earned their status, and instead are more like your post: people pointing their fingers at MS yelling "they broke the law!!".
But what's funny is that we could debate forever on the validity of the DMCA or other IP laws, but that would have no impact on whether the poor slob convicted received their punishment. Only in the cases like Microsoft is avoiding paying levied fines even an option.
Oh, what a crock of shit. Every time there's a story about somebody getting convicted of stealing software/music/whatever, the Slashdot Mind screams about how unfair their "punishment" is. Stealing software is not bad. Being too successful is bad. Wow. Buddy, you really shouldn't skip your meds...
But if MS pulled out of the EU, the EU couldnt put MS software in the public domain. At least that's the way I understood the EULA's for every microsoft product I've read. If the EU did that, they'd have to face the legal wrath of MS.
it would probablly require a directive forcing changes to the laws of member states but there is no reason the EU couldn't do it.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I'm still waiting for "The EU has begun fining Microsoft"... until then my doubt that they will do anything but threaten will remain.
I don't really consider the telcos to be "owned" by the government, but I do consider their regulations to be part of the anti-trust laws (albiet a part that only applies to telcos).
I believe that we are in agreement on the fact that incumbent monopolies have advantages not generally available to startups. I don't consider this to be a problem by itself; often these advantage work to the consumer's favor. For example, advertising is definitely cheaper when you don't have to out-market your competition. Cheaper advertising lowers the cost of selling the product, and may reduce prices as well (with an increased supply), depending on the specifics of the market. The transaction costs of dealing with a monopoly are often lower due to economies of scale. The point is: not all monopolies are bad for consumers; artificially creating competition where none naturally exists may make things worse rather than better.
The point about dumping is true, but irrelevant. The practice of dumping is beneficial to consumers in the short term, and cannot harm long-term competition; the competitors, with their lower (and perhaps non-existant) costs, can wait out the incumbent for as long as it takes. Finally, I believe that I specifically stated that government-created artificial monopolies do have the properties you described. While the practice may not be illegal, that would include inefficient companies bailed out by the government. If a company chooses to accept the government's (i.e. the taxpayer's) funding, then it should be prepared to deal with the consequences (anti-trust regulations). Unsubsidized companies, however, should not be subject to the same constraints. (Incidently, why would the government declare something it wanted to do "illegal" in the first place?)
I agree with the first three sentences. I disagree on the point that monopolies can continue to exercise active anti-competitive influences indefinitely. Even if they can manage to retain their cash reserves, doing so will reduce their flexibility and raise their costs, making their target market even more attractive to (potential) competitors and increasing the costs of maintaining the monopoly -- a self-defeating cycle. I also find it ironic that you would have the government -- the ultimate monopoly power -- step in to eliminate its economic competition and take control of the market. Even assuming that this is not contradictory, I would still conclude that application of antitrust law to unsubsidized private organizations is both unjust and unjustified.
Laws are passed so that justice will be preserved; living better is onl
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
well, quite honestly, even though microsoft has all that extra money, why would they just refuse to do business with an entire continent? dropping a few million euros a day is absolutely nothing compared to the amount of money that they would loose if they simply dropped out of the market in europe. not only would that reduce the amount of sales for the company, it would increase the amount of competition from open sources and apple. These companies would develop in Europe and leak out into the rest of the world. Isnt business about getting rich?
If Bill Gates puts his money into an ING Direct savings account, earning him 5.4% interest per annum, his daily income will exceed $5 million.
I don't think he's too worried about going bankrupt at the moment, but I guess you should probably send him and email to make sure he's okay and has a place to stay tonight...
ALERT!! ALERT!!!: This post has been re-named. "LINUX Fanboys jerk themselves to death over wet dream of Microsoft pulling their business out of the EU." Continent-wide worker sick-leave was at an all time high Wednesday, as sweaty-IT-nerds lay in bed writing new blog entries based on their fantasies of a Total linux takeover of the marketplace.
I can't help but think that my buddy, best friend, closest pal since I was 6 months old (our parents played pairs bridge together) and now a long lost friend who is the lead compliance lawyer for Microsoft's anti trust cases in EU and America is crapping his pants now. Since he took the job 3 years ago, and has been unable to talk to me about work at all, I can patently blame his decision to work for the borg and M$ existance for my buddy becoming my long loved enemy. Just a note, likely off topic, but another very personal point as to why M$ should be fined regardless of their compliance efforts and failures. They destroy lives, loads of them.
If MS pulled out of Europe, this could spiral to other markets causing a significant dent to MS's market share world wide.
Losing Europe will make MS lose a significant chunk of users, more applications are developed for other OS's. Quiet a bit of software comes out of Europe.
MS would lose all of its European recognition of IP and patents opening the floodgates to widespread piracy.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Yeah, because that's _exactly_ what happened and why it happened. Stop selling your own point of view and grow up, child.
$2.5 milion per day is less than a billion dollars a year ($912.5 M), which is probably way less than M$ extorts, errr, rakes in from European sales each year. Given that their profit margin is usually over 80% (can we say extreme overpricing?) they'd still be ahead if they pay the fines.
Markets only work because of state interference. Markets only work because of regulation and legislation. They are not a free-for-all. Western capitalist countries do not work like the Sudan or the Afghan hinterland.
Hmm..can you back that up with some links? I'd think the US would be by far the largest market
Can't you search Wikipedia on your own? Or read the 20 other comments who posted the appropriate links? For starters, the US has ~300 mio. potential customers. The EU has ~457 mio.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
In case you haven't noticed: Every time slashdot reports on an anti-trust case, there are plenty of posts decrying how the company in question is being punished for "being too successful". These posts are then invariably followed by a debate on the justifications of anti-trust law. We have all seen the arguments ten times over.
As I said, there are sockets, there is SQL, there is Java. You can easily extract whatever you want using proprietary MS APIs (the part that is open) and ship that information to other systems. You don't really need the SMB, NTFS or other hidden information. About unified logons: well I'm sure the information has to get into the Windows system at some point, probably via LDAP, or maybe it's stored in MS-SQL. Again: it should be easy to put the data in there with Java or something portable that connects to a Unix system. Maybe it's not perfect, but Windows isn't perfect (now if government *forces* MS to make their software more perfect, maybe that'll stop the whole switch-to-Unix thing, quite the opposite of what they want (or is it?)).
Many organizations are actively using Windows, Linux, Solaris and Macs side by side (and many many more just Windows and some Unix).
But even if it wasn't practical: there is still no moral argument for just blackmailing MS to do whatever you want them to. MS has lots of voluntary clients that invested in MS tools over the years, and they're happy (while other clients start switching, which is fine, and totally possible too).
I don't see whom government is protecting, and from whom. Don't like their stuff? Just quit it. Just because *many more* people chose to buy MS than people chose to buy Macs, doesn't give government the right to start dictating that company. It's not like MS build up a bad monopoly. It's the other way round: so fucking many people *chose* to be MS clients, *despite* the alternatives that do exist. So there has to be some point in using MS stuff. Now just because the clients are so overwhelmingly many gives us the right to force MS to make its system more open? Why? The logical way to go would be to quit MS NOW if you don't like it and go to the competition, not to make MS more powerful.
Sure, by the legal definition MS is bad and needs some good beating, but in the moral sense I clearly disagree. I haven't used MS stuff for quite a while. No problems. Just because so many people whine about how they'd like this or that feature in Windows doesn't give them the right to force it.
Ok, so you're bound to the wand... your decision. Many people chose different wands, like myself. Just because so overwhelmingly many people *chose* the Gnome's wand doesn't mean that anyone can force him to put certain features in his wand or remove other features (that are standard features in other systems, like browsers or media players).
"Because, of course, whatever stance the courts take must be right?!"
1 6&cid=15486101
Certainly not, as I have said myself in an earlier post: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1877
Laws are not always right, and, in my opinion, shouldn't always be followed. However, I was talking about the rights of individuals, not companies (which should not enjoy the same protections as persons, in my opinion, because they are purely legal entities), and primarily when the law is not compatible with your own ethical value-system. Corporations usually do not have a value-system exept that of making profit, and in that case, they should agree to pay the fine, because retreating from the EU market would cost a lot more.
In any case, the question whether or not it is *morally* right to halt their monopolistic behaviour is beyond the scope of this thread, and is highly subjective and arbitrary (obviously, you and MS would argue it isn't, but I and the EU commision and the courts of the EU, the USA, japan, etc. would argue it is). This is simply a case of a corporation who has to follow the rules of trade in the place where it does the trading - no higher humanistic ethical values come into play.
"My stance is that you shouldn't be punished for success."
That is a very nice stance, and I support it. However, it is completely irrelevant in this discussion, because companies are not being punished for their succes, nor even for being a monopoly, but for abusing their monopoly. Your own examples of Pepsi and Coke demonstrate this.
"Also from http://answers.com/"
Alas, whatever answers.com or the wikipedia says, legalese is always in a different language.
In any case, the "produces (even at a reasonable price) all the output of a product or service because of technological superiority (called a natural monopoly), holds a patent on a product or process of production" comes closest to what is meant by a monopoly of MS (though one would have to be lenient to call it technologically superior, or to call it a reasonable price).
As I'm not mistaken, the thresshold to call something a monopoly in the EU depends on the % of the market it has (in this case, of OS). I don't know the exact percentage, but I believe it's beyond 70% or 80%. Thus, any company having more then 80% of the market is considered a monopoly, because with such a share it effectively dominates the landscape of OSses. Since this is the case for MS, it is a monopoly. Which, I repeat, is not illegal on itself. If it tries to use that monopoly as a leverage to monopolise other markets, it does become illegal, however.
I'm sure you find this system wrong and what not, but I happen to find it quite justified. Monopolies have *never* been to the benefit of innovation and consumers, thus a system should be in place to hold it in check.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Except there would need to be a lot of unstable 3rd party drivers to get existing hardware working
And then it would get attacked more by viruses and spyware.
And then it would be windows anyway.
Don't be foolish Microsoft, pull out & force them to use somthing else.
It just wasn't meant to be.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
I do agree with the order to open up sections of their software, I beleive that the whole media player part is incredibly stupid: 1. What's so wrong about them bundling WMP in the first place- people have the option to install another media player anyway 2. MS bundle other software onto Windows- Notepad, Wordpad, Outlook Express, IE (OK I wish they didn't put on the last one). Wouldn't MS bundling absolutly anything onto Windows be illegal in the eyes of the EU?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Scratch that. If I RTFA, I would know that that the warning which told them about fining them 2m Euro everyday was actually in December 2005. It was in relation to failing to comply with the 2004 ruling, but the fine was only mentioned in Dec '05.
One thing the article didn't mention however is that the fine can be issued retrospectively, i.e: if they issue the fine today it would be back-payable to December '05!
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
"what would prevent MS from basically thumbing their nose at EU"
The fact that it's the biggest market in the world perhaps?
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
errr, I'm pretty sure the US courts don't consider the DMCA to be open for debate, if you are convicted of breaking its draconian restrictions, the judge will send you to jail. Similarly, the job of the court in this case is to rule on whether MSFT have infringed the law as it stands. Courts do not have the power to overrule the text of law, that would require legislation that the court is not empowered to enact.
"EU couldnt put MS software in the public domain."
Copyright is a state-granted temporary monopoly. Saying it couln't revoke that monopoly right is like saying it couldnt pay out lower welfare benefits.
I'll betcha they can.
"Sure, by the legal definition MS is bad and needs some good beating, but in the moral sense I clearly disagree. I haven't used MS stuff for quite a while. No problems. Just because so many people whine about how they'd like this or that feature in Windows doesn't give them the right to force it."
That's because your moral premise is completely different; you seem to uphold the premise that a company should be allowed to do whatever it wants - while I (and most of the rest of the world) are of the opinion they are to be hold to restrictions, just like any individual citizen is restricted by laws. Now, it is possible, as I have argued myself, that one should not always follow the law if there are moral objections, thus, when a law is totally incompatible with your own basic ethical value-system.
However, I am left pondering what ethical-value system this might be in the case of a monopolist, and in how far this would be universal.
Corporations only have one overwhelming value-system, and that is making as much profit as possible. This, I would argue, can not constitute an ethical justified objection to a restriction imposed by a law, unless one would argue this value-system trumps every other (ethical) value-system.
Which is, in fact, often claimed within the context of the typical anglo-saxon capitalistic view on the world.
It should be noted, however, that this is not a universally accepted premise, and many find there are other considereations and moral/ethical values, beyond that of profit-gathering. Basic protection of citizens - including in their status of consumers - and stimulating innovation in society are both ethical values, for instance, that can be used, aside profits. Since monopolies, as history demonstrates, are antithetical to both, one is fully justified to make adjustements based on those ethical values or argumentation, instead of yours.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
how about a boatload of money?
you think ms runs on pride?
pls
"the original theory was that MS wouldn't sell products in Europe, not use them. Besides, just because a European business can't go down the street to pick up a copy of XP doesn't mean they can't get it - this is the Internet, dude."
Companies don't "go down the street to pick up a copy of XP" -- they volume license from MS directly, and receive extensive corporate support packages as part of the deal. All of this would cease, as would most of the patches thanks to the "Genuine Advantage" system that would eventually label all European installations as illegal.
"The cost of researching alternatives that work for your business, tearing down existing infrastructure, replacing it with new infrastructure, and testing it extensively until it works is exponentially exorbitant the larger your company is."
Indeed. And the EC will spin this as "a move that will stimulate the domestic European IT industry, thereby generating hundreds of thousands of new jobs". Not of course that they have to spin it, because they aren't a democratic institution; they've done wildly unpopular things in the past, and will do them in the future, because most of the institutions that matter aren't answerable to the public.
"The cost of doing business would go up, but if the cause was MS pulling out of Europe as a direct result of the EU imposing a fine, who are they really going to resent?"
The EC has consistently shown that public opinion plays no part whatsoever in its decision-making process. It is in most respects a Nietzsche super-state where a thin patina of democracy exists solely to give people the illusion of actually having some say about what happens, but things are actually run by professional functionaries who are not subject to the whims of the pseudo-democratic layer. A few years of turmoil for IT-dependent companies won't make these people hesitate for a microsecond -- indeed, the more wailing and gnashing of teeth that arises from such a prospect, the more likely it is that the commission will act precipitately (spin) "to prevent further dependency on a foreign company that obviously wants the benefits of trading within the EC without being subject to the same laws that everyone else has to obey".
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Its all about the APIs. MS were told to document them for 3rd parties. They refused to do so (produced an incomprehensible document which you could look at if you sign an NDA and pay the (fairly high) fee) and they are getting called up for it.
If you dont comply with the law, you get punished. Whats the problem?
PS - Apple is not a monopoly. Thats why they arent being told to unbundle their media player. MS are using their desktop monopoly to gain an advantage in another market (media players/formats). That is a breach of anti-trust law.
The EU created Airbus just to compete with Boeing. They could do something similar just to compete with Microsoft. And with Linux, BSD, etc. out there, this might be not such a huge investmend. Preinstalled on computers sold in the EU, a standarized Linux distribution with a binary driver interface added (e.g. using LLVM) could have a good stand against MS. Of course, the open source spirit will be lost, but it could be a huge commercial success.
To make a long story short: MS doesn't want to battle the EU. MS would not only loose a big market, but worse a real competitor might be created, subsided by huge amounts of EU money.
Please do not spread such FUD; or are you astroturfing?
My friend, nothing has been posted so far EXCEPT astroturfing.
I hate breaking the news to you, but these days one reads the MSFT stories in
Well, that could be the real explanation of Vista Forever: all the developers in Redmond are astroturfing here instead of coding...
Cheers,
CC
"We're not the borg!"
:-/ ;-)
Not yet! But we're rapidly being assimilated!!
And resistance seems futile...
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Let me suggest a definition: vis-a-vis
Suggest away, it isn't going to make you any more right. As I pointed out, the magna carta may have been a big deal in England, but it was in no way applicable to the rest of Europe. So it does not have the same characteristics, and resembles them in as much as it is written on paper with ink.
You are confused about what I am saying...
Nope, you blundered and are trying to mislead your way out of it. Let me quote you here directly: "and exist only by way of a sovereign's decision to limit their own power". A sovereign. How else is one supposed to interpret that?
As well, it is incorrect and presumptuous to say that every country has the same regulatory authority for seizure in lieu of arrears.
But isn't that exactly what you were saying with regard to the EU? Not to mention that what I said is perfectly valid, every government does have these powers and will operate in exactly this way. This top down bottom up assumption of rights is a large mound of twaddle. I don't know who modded this up, but its either a very clever troll or someone who is honestly mislead. In any case I call this a win, since I got to use the word twaddle in a conversation.
Remember kids, although they may be the only ones that speak American, the UK != the EU.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
"[]...because in the western world we abandoned the whip, cutting-off-of-fingers and other fun punishments a few centuries ago"
And torture too...
ummm...
Well, in SOME part of that western world, at least.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
You've got this backwards. All 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.
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
Except after one year the Comission could just say they are doubling the fine or banning one or more of the illegal products. Sure it wouldn't destroy Microsoft to pay these fines but it would make them realize the Comission won't back down until they get what they want.
If I read all the info on this correctly it is not just about the media player, but also the SMB protocol that microsoft calls "Microsoft Networking", and the perversions they performed on it to ensure a lack of interoperability. SMB was originally written by IBM, not MS, so the issue at hand is the way MS mutated it and said, well, if your OS can't communicate too bad. Microsoft is deliberatley using thier monopoly to impede others attempting to connect to thier "Windows Network" with anything else. "Have you ever tried to get an average user to mount a CD in Linux?" Put the CD in, automount does the rest if it is installed, and most distros will install it, unless you tell it not to. The fact is that if I gave your grandma Kubuntu, she would never notice the differnce, functionally. She might notice the buttons are a little different, and that the blue ie is now a blue globe, but they both say internet. (She might get a little concerned when her Thomas Kinkade screensaver won't install, and I'll give you that, but that isn't MS's problem to begin with, and I don't hold them accountable for a vendor not making a cross platform program). As far as the average user who just wants thier lites to blink and thier boobies to show up, tell me where Ubuntu would fail them. That is a very user-freindly distro, very stable, and very easy to use. And I never said that unbundling Media Player and IE would be 'benificial', but the choice of not ever having to use IE would be welcome, ActiveX is a huge gaping hole to introduce all kinds of nasties onto your system.
I got nuthin
By switching protocols in the US as well? If MS isn't willing to offer the "EU protocols" in the US as well, I'm sure there will be other companies who are willing to do it ...
Of course it wouldn't help MS a little bit; instead it would make customers unhappy with MS and much more likely to look at non-MS solutions also in other areas.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
C'mon, the guy's got something like 1.21 JIGAbucks in the bank...
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
Are you drunk? What did I "lie" about, exactly? When did I say that I never debated about anti-trust shit on slashdot?
You: "but when it comes down to anti-trust laws, there is NO debate, whatsoever"
Which, seeing as you yourself have engaged in the debates you say never occur, you know isn't true. Now shut the fuck up, liar.
"anti-monopoly" laws are in fact, punishing a company for being too successful and earned their status
And this is why the debates died off, because the only things the "pro-trust" side can come up with is lies like this. No, it isn't punishing them for success. Being a monopoly is okay, being ridiculously successfull is okay. It is abusing that status in anti-competitive ways that is punished. But of course you know this -- it's been covered a hundred times in the debates you claim don't exist -- and are merely pretending to be ignorant of the distinction.
Oh, what a crock of shit. Every time there's a story about somebody getting convicted of stealing software/music/whatever, the Slashdot Mind screams about how unfair their "punishment" is.
*snap* *snap* Pay attention! "but that would have no impact on whether the poor slob convicted received their punishment"
Neither Slashdot nor the average casual copyright infringer has the power to avoid obeying the court's decision without becoming an outlaw.
For Microsoft, this is apparently not the case.
Stealing software is not bad. Being too successful is bad. Wow. Buddy, you really shouldn't skip your meds...
Dude, whatever medication it is that makes you think that Microsoft was punished for "success" rather than the anti-competitive practices revealed in the trial, I'm sure as fuck not going to take any. You really shouldn't go rifling through your parents' medicine cabinet. Those brown bottles are prescription-only for a reason.
The enemies of Democracy are
They could for instance, disable access to MSN messenger from anyone located within the EU.
It would cripple the European economy overnight!
That is the Gnome Guild. They can force him.
If he wants to stay in the Guild, that is.
emt 377 emt 4
You mean ... you're forced to run/buy Windows ... if you want to keep running Windows?
Oh my God, that's so inhuman!
Seriuosly, would you even want to use a $100 laptop??? Does it have the "Designed for Windows for Workgroups" sticker on the case
A laptop costing only $100 may not sound like much but for someone who doesn't have access to a computer it can make a big difference. Much like the Simputer, it would allow the masses to have a computer. With one and internet access it could enable many to improve their lot in life. That's a big idea behind the Simputer, as an example a farmer in India can use it to check the going price of food commodities to make sure any middleman offers them a descent price for what they've grown. Many farmers in third world countries get the short end of the stick by what are called coyotes in Latin America. Not knowing how much commodities like coffee sale for internationally farmers sale their product cheap to these coyotes who then sale it on the open market. With a "$100 laptop" with wifi or another method of accessing the internet farmers can look up how much produce is selling for and therefore they can get a better price thus improving their lives.
Oh, obviously ther isn't an "Designed for Windows for Workgroups" sticker on them. The OS used is Linux. Much of the computers used in the Third World use Linux. Windows raises the price of computers as compared to Linux, especially with the requirements for Windows. In part for this reason MS released a low cost version of Windows in Asia.
FalconShould there be a Law?
No, just that Gnomes need to do what the
Gnome Guild(s) dictate. If you visit
a new city with a different Guild, you
need to obey that Guild, if you want to
peddle wands there.
emt 377 emt 4
Oh sure, that's how life is when you visit another state or country. That's how life is when you decide to code apps for Mac OS, for Windows, for Solaris. That's how life is when you decide to code in another language that has different constructs. That's how life is when you decide to go work for somebody. It's always about compromise.
The point is: not all monopolies are bad for consumers; artificially creating competition where none naturally exists may make things worse rather than better.
No one said they were. The point is that the monopoly abuses that are illegal according to antitrust law are bad for consumers, as as been repeatedly shown in the market. That is why they were banned everywhere.
The practice of dumping is beneficial to consumers in the short term, and cannot harm long-term competition; the competitors, with their lower (and perhaps non-existant) costs, can wait out the incumbent for as long as it takes.
What are you talking about? Dumping happens only when there is competition and then price gouging happens when the competitor is driven out of business. You're assuming a company can afford to make a product but not bring it to market until dumping stops, but you can't pay employees for that time for free, or store product. Also, an existing monopoly usually has accumulated a large reserve of funds with that monopoly so they can almost always afford to wait out a newcomer.
(Incidently, why would the government declare something it wanted to do "illegal" in the first place?)
The government does not have a hive mind and often factions within it directly oppose one another, as is the intended design of the balance of powers.
I disagree on the point that monopolies can continue to exercise active anti-competitive influences indefinitely. Even if they can manage to retain their cash reserves, doing so will reduce their flexibility and raise their costs, making their target market even more attractive to (potential) competitors and increasing the costs of maintaining the monopoly -- a self-defeating cycle.
Anti-competative monopolistic actions make more money than they cost. That is why businesses do them. Raising of costs is more than offset by raising of profits. If you make 50 million with 50% of a market you can make 400 million with the whole market.
Businessmen realize this, thus the cost of competing with a company is and has been making 400 million for the benefit of grabbing 50 million is lower than the benefit of entering a market against a non-monopoly for the same size market share. Further, it is usually a lot easier.
I also find it ironic that you would have the government -- the ultimate monopoly power -- step in to eliminate its economic competition and take control of the market.
Antitrust law specifically does not do this. It takes no action against a company maintaining a monopoly, only one using that monopoly to make more monopolies in new markets.
Even assuming that this is not contradictory, I would still conclude that application of antitrust law to unsubsidized private organizations is both unjust and unjustified.
As I said before, you need to hit the books again. Take a look at an unregulated monopoly in a free market. It expands until it hits another monopoly. You end up with a small number of competing monopolies and no room for smaller or specialized business. There is a reason abusing a monopoly is illegal almost everywhere.
Laws are passed so that justice will be preserved; living better is only a side effect, contingent on our own individual and collective efforts. I would not want to "live better" in an unjust society; I doubt many humans truly would.
What is just about a company taking over a market despite having an obviously inferior product to others who worked hard and made something better? If one person works hard, innovates, and creates something that betters all of mankind, don't you think it is fair that they should be protected from losing in the market simply because someone is leveraging an existing monopoly in a completely separate market? Like it or not, the laws are about more than ethics, they are about preventing a violent, desperate type of living. The rich are not taxed proportionally more than the poor because it is just.
"I cannot think of any other OS that even approaches the maturity of Linux at this point."
a lization/about/systems.html. shtml
IBM might just decide to knock the dust off OS/2. In many ways Linux and Windows and yes even OSX still have not caught up with where it was a decade ago. I don't know of a 64 bit kernel for it or its offspring eCS but it might be hiding in one of the IBM labs in Boca Raton.
Actually the advances in hardware, emulators and virtualizers are making real time simulation of an entire hardware platform API or a specific OS API more practical. I suspect that any posix compliant OS with well written emulators or virtulizers will soon make reduce a specific OS like Windows to application level importance anyway.
I realize that most here are aware of these efforts, but are some urls anyway for the few that are not.
http://www.xensource.com/
http://www.parallels.com/
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/about/virtu
http://www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/pc.shtml
http://www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/macintosh
http://www.winehq.com/
Matthew
Where can I download the current documentation from MS (the one that EU didn't approve)
I had already figgered that one out. ;-)
Interesting read, though a bit scarce on hard data concerning how widespread the use of this healthcare was under the populace at large, what the quality was, etc.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Likely Ashcroft reasoned that if the American public perceived the DOJ as being hung up on a fight between software companies when they should be going after terrorists, he'd be strung up by his gonads.
If the DoJ really can't handle a few large-scale corporate cases while dealing with a few terrorists that's downright pathetic. There's probably thousands or even millions of cases being treated by the judicative at once, why should the DoJ be incapable of handling a few tens?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
this is great, my tax's are gonna plumet, microsoft can pay for me... i think if the EU go ahead with this it will be a good sign to microsoft that they have yet to rule the world, in fact they are losing control...
If MS did what you suggested, the EU could flip MS the bird and release their own OS based on the SOURCE CODE that MS has given to governments and universities. The EU could setup their own little company to start learnig the code base, publish security fixes etc. Heck, they could lure in some MS programmers with nice bonus packages and get them to move to the EU to continue working on the MS code base that has now been released into the public domain in the EU.
MS would never be able to do what you suggest, it would destroy them. Companies around the world would be dropping MS real fast if they saw MS would just pull support rather then comply with a court order.
There is also the financial reason for MS to not do what you suggest. I don't know the true numbers, but I am sure the MS makes more per day from the EU than the 2$ million fine.
General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.