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 ($2.5m US) per day until they comply. Under that ruling, Microsoft must open up parts of their operating system to competitors, and change how they bundle Media Player." From the article: "On Monday, Microsoft said it had begun to provide the information Brussels had demanded, but the Commission has signaled the company acted too late. In December, Brussels informed the software giant that it had failed to comply with the original ruling it issued in March 2004."
That's for sure. This has been going on for quite some time. I think it was at least a year ago that the EU would fine microsoft every day.
If they comply right away, do they not get fined?
+5, Truth
change how they bundle Media Player.
//open to pointers on how to excise MP10 from my new machine completely.
I don't think you can bundle anything more than making it completely uninstallable.
Poor, poor Microsoft.
How will they come up with enough change out of Bill Gates' couch to pay that daily?
They might have to pull directly from the company coffee fund!
I think it was at least a year ago that the EU would fine microsoft every day.
Scratch that. If I RTFA, I would know that that was exactly what they said in 2004.
... Than the limited (though enormous) fines the EU was talking about the last time. Last I recall, the total fine was around 50 million dollars.
:-)
US$ 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!!
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
If it was, I would imagine they'd have started imposing these fines many months ago - the original ruling was made in March 2004.
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.
European Commission , not Government.
However; I'm right with you on that one. Though it'll most likely be spent on subsidies for Swiss and Luxembourg fishing fleets.
ZOMGWTFPWNtKKTHNXBIBI!!!ONE!111!!!
"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.
What are the chances of this being simply an excuse to generate a $2.5 million per day revenue stream for the EU government?
Errrm, none? There is no "EU government" - perhaps you meant intergovernmental European Union, or the European Council, Commission or Parliament?
The EU has a budget of over 1% of the European GDP (works out at around US$ 160 billion). Why would they want $2.5m/day?
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
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.
Zero. The revenue is doubtless a nice bonus but what matters most to governments is power. Microsoft has decided to defy the collective requrements of the sovereign governments that make up the EU, while operating in their markets. They're not going to let Microsoft get away with that if they can possibly help it. That's all the motive they need.
There is no "EU government". Further, the EU annual budget dwarves a paltry $2.5m/day; while more money is always good, there's no need to create spurious conspiracy theories.
The EU is merely taking the sort of corrective measures the US DoJ should have taken a long, long time ago. I fail to see how a company that's been convicted of a crime can go unpunished for so long.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
If that were the case, they'd be making it as difficult as possible for Microsoft to comply with their demands instead of telling them exactly what they are doing wrong and giving them years to correct their mistake.
I know it's trendy to accuse the EU of being greedy and anti-American, and I don't deny that the money will be happily spent, but that doesn't mean Microsoft isn't breaking the law and it doesn't mean the EU aren't right to fine them.
Microsoft could easily avoid these fines by complying with the court ruling. They have chosen to make every effort to avoid doing so, and these fines are the result.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
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.
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
Get my wallet!
"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.
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
there's no need to create spurious conspiracy theories
Would this be Slashdot if we didn't?
Developers: We can use your help.
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."
"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 this were purely a cash cow, the EU would have been collecting since 2004.
Also, got any source for your claims? Looks to me like you are a MS turfer.
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!
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.........
Only where it's applicable. If Microsoft has no Copyrights in the countries in question either because of an oversight or because they've been stripped of them, then the Berne Convention doesn't apply and the WTO won't directly intervene. If you didn't know, even in the US, they may strip a rights holder of their rights if they're guilty of using the same to violate the Anti-Trust Acts. It just doesn't happen all that often.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
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.
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.
if i was MS i would have said fuck it by now.. and pull out of the EU completely.
I see. So you would break your agreements with thousands of international customers (like every major company in the world since they all have european offices) while at the same time abandoning 20 billion dollars in profit a year to avoid paying .7 billion in fines? And you'd do thins knowing you'd be instantly creating your own biggest competitor by handing a third of the market to other parties. You'd be fired before the day was out, since the board of directors can do math. You might be shot if they're feeling spiteful about the billions you managed to cost them in the confusion and bad PR. If nothing else you'd be a wanted criminal in so many nations the US would almost have to deport you.
the EU have been draging[sic] this out making it imposiable[sic] for MS to settle it..
The EU wants the APIs documented well enough to provide for fair competition as judged by the expert MS chose. MS hasn't bothered to do that, because they make more money breaking the law. What they have done is proposed a number of solutions that won't restore competition and spent a lot of money on press in the hopes that they can put pressure on the EU by spreading lies, like the ones you are parroting. How exactly can you think their documentation is in compliance when it has not been released and the expert MS chose says it isn't?
The real bitch will be when games start to require DX10. Frankly, it's the only thing that will make many people to upgrade to vista, and MS knows it. I hope OpenGL and an open SDL type will be available to compete for with DX10 in the eyes of developers.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
not really, some of the Samba guys are on those independent committees for the EU, so they know EXACTLY what they are needing as far as documentation. It's a running joke that the interface for windows printer and file sharing is so messed up the current MICROSOFT devs occasionally need to dig out the documentation from the open source [and reverse-engineered] Samba project to figure out how to do their jobs... on the REAL source code. One clarification too, the EU did NOT demand MS to open up their source code.. that would mean giving up IP... they only required an Open, freely available, no-strings-attached, documentation of how window file and print sharing [plus authentication and a few other things] work.. had it had to be usable.. both technically and legally. MS instead dumped millions of lines of source, under NDA, and a steep licensing fee.... somebody's deliberately not hearing the question.. and it's not the EU.
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?
Why is everyone so against microsoft
Because they are criminals that harm everyone and the computing industry in general with their crimes and because they have participated in the corruption of the US government by paying huge bribes to both major parties campaign funds to have the case against them gutted.
Doesnt Win amp run as good as media player does on windows?
How is this relevant?
No matter what you say if microsoft withdrew all support and products from europe their[sic] would be some nasty consiquences[sic].
Yeah, but they would be nasty mostly for MS.
It would take some time for all servers and desktops to be tranistioned[sic] to linux.
So, what would be the rush? Is MS going to try to get people in Europe arrested for pirating their software? Yeah, I'm sure the EU will get right on that. They'd probably revoke all of MS's trademarks, copyright, and patents in Europe, making Windows source code available freely.
then would come trying to deal with the u.s and other countries that still use microsoft.
Do you think other countries would not follow Europe's lead when MS failed to comply there? Do you think no one could manage to save as PDF, or use open office to open Word files?
It would be very bad if microsoft took everything out of Europe.
Yeah, that 10 minutes before the emergency conference call of MS's board would be pretty bad. Then the CEO would be removed and they'd go back to complying with the law. No one walks away from 20 billion in profit to avoid paying .7 billion. No one creates a huge market for their competitors, while undermining the monopoly that lets them make those outrageous profits. No one breaks their contracts with every major multinational in the world and expects to walk away from it. MS may be wealthy, but compared to the huge companies they would be screwing over they are a minnow in the ocean.
For you video game junkies that would include the Xbox 360
It's just one more market they are trying to make headway in that they would be crushed in.
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.
Stop reading the MS press releases as news. No really, I'm serious. MS has not complied and have not documented the APIs well enough to allow competitors to compete on even footing. This is as judged by the expert MS picked to make this decision. Since you haven't seen the docs and he has and given his expertise and credibility, what possible reason could you think you have for being a better judge than he is? MS press releases can say what they want, but if you believe they are true and unbiased then you are complete fool.
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?
Microsoft is headquartered in the US. I don't think the EU has the authority to simply demand money from them.
As a matter of authority, that is a prima facie right of sovereignty. It is enforceability that is at issue, a practical matter. The EU can seize Microsoft assets therein, and elsewhere through the Doctrine of Comity and any reciprocity treaties.
Interestingly, and more fundamentally, Microsoft's assets exist only and precisely because sovereigns grant them. These are known as vested rights (or acquired rights), and exist only by way of a sovereign's decision to limit their own power, vis-a-vis the Magna Carta.
The American line of reasoning, bottom-up rights of a constituent superceding natural rights of the state is based upon experiences from a long history of absolute sovereignty that arose from the Peace of Westphalia. (Which was more interested in sovereignty and self-determination as against other states) These acquired rights should not be taken for granted in America, or elsewhere.
That's all pedantic, but underscores the model of law Microsoft is subject to. Their property rights are acquired from sovereign grants, not absolute entitlement, and their rights can be quashed within the EU as a matter of implicit state power, and without as a matter of international relations, notwithstanding the limitations the EU imbues upon its own powers.
"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.
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.
ok so how do you explain the opening of the source.. sure you have to register/pay for it but it is there.
The source was not as easy to use to create a fresh re-implementation as the API docs. In fact, the licensing pretty much made it legal suicide to try to re-implement after viewing the source. Further, the license made it so MS's biggest competitors, Solaris and Linux could not have integrated the code since it purposely excluded software with their licenses. How exactly does that make for a level playing field in the server OS market, which is, after all, the point of the punishment?
when you look at linux.. and the documentation for some of the stuff - well it just isn't always there.. sure you can find support and answer your questions.. if mabey[sic] the competition started working with it and messing around and trying instead of getting the EU to do there job then they could make it work..
Are you joking? Most of the AD stuff was a complete copy of LDAP, which was then intentionally broken in order to stop others from interoperating. Linux and several projects have done a great job of reverse engineering most of those intentional problems and working anyway, but it is a huge effort in time and manpower and it can never be perfect since it is all a black box. The point is, MS connecting their server and desktop with these secret protocols is illegal. It is a criminal offense as MS well knew when they did it. Now, as punishment, they have been ordered to stop breaking the law and you say it is other groups' job to work around MS's illegal action?
you have to look at it from both sides.. the competition wants MS to hand everythign[sic] over on a silver plater[sic] and teach them to make software for windows.
The EU wants MS to comply with the law, the same as everyone else and not tie their monopoly to other markets. MS has a monopoly. That means they are obligated to not do anything with that monopoly product that will give them an unfair advantage in another market; in this case the server and media player markets. If MS wants to gain market share and make money in the server market the law says they have to do so by making the best server product, not by illegally tying an inferior server to their desktop product, which everyone has to use since it is a monopoly. You think it is so onerous to demand MS make a better product to compete, rather than doing so by breaking the law? You think they should be able to force everyone to use their drastically inferior server since it is the only one that can properly communicate with their desktop? I guess we fundamentally disagree then.
the comepition woln't open up their software to the extent they want MS to...
LDAP and IMAP/POP were open standards, fully documented long before MS had competing closed/obfuscated protocols.
can someone show me full documentation on how to use the real player api to make it do what i want..
No one has asked for API documentation regarding Windows Media Player, only the secret interactions of Windows server and desktop. Media player is breaking the law via bundling. That is to say, they will only sell you Windows if you buy Windows + Media Player at the same price. Thus, all consumer have already purchased one media player so it is a huge roadblock to people paying a second time for the player they really want and would have chosen in the first place except for the bundling.
sure MS has some dirty taticts[sic] but the EU is being much worse
You are uninformed and just plain wrong.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
If Microsoft stopped selling in Europe that would leave a fairly large area of fertile brain in which competitive software can grow, and I dont think the brains at MSFT are so stupid as to miss that fact. That's one reason, and a very good one, that MSFT will pay the fines and get Vista [N] versions out the door ASAP.
You really shouldn't get all your information about this topic from Microsoft's P.R.-departement.
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
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
I guess MS Engineers are no different. Sometimes looking at someone else's implementations of their own APIs can be less confusing that attempting to make sense of the garbled 10 year old documentation that was written in-house or not even locatable. Still, I would have thought MS would be slapping their staff hard for doing that, for fear of somehow "infecting" their own code by mistake.
As for MS and this process. I can well imagine that if you are faced with providing documentation that you make sure it's written by a remedial English class, translated into Mandarin, then to Urdu and finally back into English. Then ensure to sort in a useful way such as by how many vowels there are on each page and copiously hyperlink every single instance of "and", "then", "if" but nothing else.
> but come on, let's not jump to conclusions here.
..)
I agree, i say let's leave the conclusions to those that actually have all the facts.
Let's see whether they think that the problem is the lack of good programmers...
(..reading TFA
well, there it is: apparently they believe that it is the lack of proper protocol documentation
that causes the "sub-par performance of third party applications on Microsoft server software".
At least we cleared this one up.
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
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.
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.
i hope microsoft tell the EU to shove their "easy money" sceme, thats all the EU want, microsoft's money.
So, what you're suggesting is that the judge in this case has looked at the EU's budget, decided, say that the French tourist industry could do with a subsidy, and fined Microsoft so he could pay for it. Or do you think the council of ministers ordered the court to make this ruling? Government organisations don't work like that. The EU does not think with one mind. We're not the borg!
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.
Because Microsoft have effective control of the market.
microsoft have already opened up documents for everything the EU wanted, the EU are just getting greedy and forcing microsoft to give up more.
Good. About time too. Everything should have been documented a long time ago.
"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
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).
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.
Let me suggest a definition:
vis-a-vis (n)
1. a person or thing having the same function or characteristics as another
Hence: Magna Carta is a historical example of cessation of absolute authority, and while perhaps the origin of vested rights in modern society, certainly not the current authority for it (which would typically be a constitutional writ, but not always).
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.
You are confused about what I am saying. See, e.g. definition:
Sovereign (n):
2. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other; possessing, or entitled to, original authority or jurisdiction; as, a sovereign state; a sovereign discretion.
You are confusing this with Sovereign meaning royalty.
As well, it is incorrect and presumptuous to say that every country has the same regulatory authority for seizure in lieu of arrears.
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?
You don't know I supose that almost every large corporation in the us is subsidized from time to time (see Boeing) and that your agriculture is even more heavily subsidized than the French agriculture; US are mainly exporting subsidized grains, stolen oil, subsidized weapons and "good quality" software (see M$) and some movies. For example, who do you think is buying Chevrolet or Cadillac outside US? The answer is nobody. American astronauts are taken to the ISS by Russian rockets, you know why? You should know by now: reliability! I've been living in North America for a couple of years and I'm stunned by the poor quality of most of the products found here. To put an end to it, USA is probably the most protectionist economy in the developed world; if it would not be like this most of the large american companies would go bankrupt in no time due to competition.
No time for a login and probably not worth either, too many fools on slashdot lately.
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