Slashdot Mirror


EU Fines for Microsoft Approved, Off the Record

mattaw writes "The Register is carrying a report that all 25 member states of the EU have found Microsoft guilty of non-compliance, off the record. Microsoft is in line for a fine of $2.51 million per day backdated to December 15th 2004 for failing to meet the terms of the EU commission's ruling."

17 of 692 comments (clear)

  1. So that's... by CtrlPhreak · · Score: 3, Informative

    So roughly that's a year plus 7 months is ~575 days * 2.51 million, that's ONE BILLION DOLLARS! (1,443,250,000) Who let Dr. Evil run Europe?

    --
    WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
    1. Re:So that's... by Isbiten · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even with this fine, Europe is still an incredible, unbelievable source of profit to Microsoft. Collectively, the second largest economy in the world

      Actually it's the largest economy in the world.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Europe an_Union
      The European Union has the world's largest economy, slightly larger than that of the United States of America with a 2005 GDP of 12,865,602 million vs. 11,734,300 million (USD figures) (using nominal US Dollar GDP) according to the International Monetary Fund.

      --
      I fought the corporate America, and the corporate America bought the law.
  2. Thats A LOT of money by bombboyer · · Score: 3, Informative

    As of July 5th, 2006: 567 days * 2.51 million per day = $1.423 BILLION Is there any way to avoid this fine?

  3. 300 engineers by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Informative
    from TFA "I can assure you that we are continuing to work day and night with our 300 dedicated engineers to create documentation which is complete and accurate to satisfy the European Commission."

    300 engineers to document some protocols? I could believe 10, maybe 20 could get the job done in a few weeks. How on earth could 300 engineers work together on such a (excuse my ignorance/naivete) trivial job for two years? Hasn't this guy heard of The Mythical Man Month? MS aren't idiots; they've designed the process to fail. They deserve every cent of the fines.

  4. Re:so? by Salsaman · · Score: 4, Informative
    I'm all in favor of Microsoft opening some of their interfaces...

    That's exactly the point. The EU told Microsoft to do so two years ago, and Microsoft failed to comply. What else should the EU do other than fine Microsoft ? Hold a gun to Bill's head until he's finished writing the documentation ? Put the company executives in jail ?

  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. Re:Sad day for America by rodac · · Score: 4, Informative

    Some years ago a large swedish company was fined for anti-competitive practises and price dumping on the italian market.

    that is a big no-no and they were fined the standard 10% of the annual global revenue.

    10% global annual revenue hurts big time if you are a multinational company.

    many other european companies have been fined in the same way.

  7. lets add that up... by indy_Muad'Dib · · Score: 3, Informative

    2.51 million per day backdated to december 15th

    202 days

    $507,020,000 USD

    plus 2.51 each day til they are im compliance.

    thatsa pretty big chunk o cash.

    they expect to make 11.5 - 11.7 billion this year, losing 5% is pretty bad.

  8. Re:so? by Vo0k · · Score: 4, Informative
    Add three zeros to a million and you get a thousand million.


    It's called milliard. At least in most of Europe.

    num - US - UK

    10^3 - thousand - thousand
    10^6 - million - million
    10^9 - billion - milliard
    10^12 - trillion - billion
    10^15 - quadrillion - trillion
    10^18 - quintyllion - quadrillion

    You need to specify Europe or US when speaking bignum, or you may end up 3 orders of magnitude away from desired goal.
    In Poland we say "Microsoft placi 1.4 miliarda dolarow" and nobody mentions billions of dollars that easily.
    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  9. Re:so? by OzRoy · · Score: 3, Informative

    But you don't rent your copy of windows. Forcing them to stop trading will not stop your current copy from working so your computer will not stop on that day. All it will mean is MS won't be able to sell Vista etc in EU countries, something that will hurt MS more than anyone else.

  10. Re:good for the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You have got to be kidding. Microsoft is the only one _you_ see on the news probably. The EU is very strict on this sort of things. Have a look at the EU vs Alitalia or the EU vs Olympic Airlines, or the EU vs BMW and GM. The EU even goes against its own country members if they fail to comply with EU law. No matter how people want to see it, microsoft is not the innocent victim here...

    [Offtopic]Congrats to Italy for Barrying Germany 'Squadra Azzurra' Style! I hope you guys lift the cup in the end![/offtopic]

  11. Re:so? by Xiroth · · Score: 5, Informative
    Well, they'd have to break a treaty to do so, so I doubt they'd be willing.

    That's as far as I can tell, anyway - admittedly my knowledge on internation politics isn't crash hot.

  12. Re:so? by GreyPoopon · · Score: 5, Informative
    So ... do you think Microsoft has gathered all it's employees and instructed them to collectively deceive the public ?

    No, it's more like Microsoft HASN'T gathered its employees to clearly document interfaces in compliance with the EU ruling.

    You can find info on Microsoft's Communication Protocols here

    I believe the EU (and Microsoft competitors) already responded to that. The documentation isn't clear enough, and conveniently leaves out many hidden details that continue to provide Microsoft with a competitive advantage.

    There's also a program which gives access to source code specifically trying to appease the EU here

    And if you read the pages behind the link you provided, you'll see very clearly that the program has ROYALTIES attached to it. It would be acceptable to charge a reasonable one-time fee for technical documentation, but ROYALTIES??

    I mean it's pretty hard for Microsoft to defend themselves in this circumstance, where the group they are in dispute with is also the judge and jury.

    Not really true. The "judge and jury" has only become part of the dispute because Microsoft has failed to comply with their previous judgement.

    Have you thought perhaps maybe just maybe the EU has decided it'd like a slice of Microsoft war chest and has just decided it'll make up whatever excuse and take some.

    Have you considered that Microsoft is, as usual, trying to get away with the appearance of compliance while at the same time continuing to milk their own cash cow?

    --

    GreyPoopon
    --
    Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

  13. Re:The Future (thought experiment) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, very insightful.
    Apart from the fact that Debian would include several media players and browsers, none of which were produced by themselves and would probably be delighted to include others of sufficient quality. So the monopoly abuse question (which is what the MS issue is all about) would never arise and your example is total bollocks.
    Also the fact that anyone is free to take the debian source, make a totally compatable distro and include whatever media players etc. that they like (which can't be done with windows) makes your example double extra mega total bollocks.

    I wish I wasn't forced to post as AC (by slashdot's bizarre IP address blocking which seems to exclude entire ranges from logging on for no apparant reason) so I could see if you attempt to justify your amazingly ignorant opinion which always crops up at least once every time the MS/EU issue is discussed.

  14. Re:so? by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's completely reasonable not to document the full capabilities of a framework or software component.

    They have explicitly been ordered by court to document the full capabilities of certain frameworks and protocols. There have been long arguments about it and the judges found that in this case it is completely unreasonable for Microsoft to keep those secret for a huge variety of reasons mostly relating to Microsofts market position and behavior. Had they been reasonable themselves in past times, this would not have happened.

    It is completely reasonable to expect a company to comply with the law and court rulings in a territory where they want to do business

    Publishing an interface is a big deal, since a published interface is set in stone for eternity.

    And if they don't document them properly how are their own products going to work? Oh, and changes can be dealt with by updates to the documentation (silly concept eh?)... Oh, those don't exist? back to square one, how is your own software supposed to implement them..

    It's simply good design practice to expose as little information as possible about how to exploit/abuse the internals of a component.

    1. Hiding your implementation details is not a design decision, it at best a way to hide the idiocy of your design decisions
    2. Keeping interfaces obscure is not helping the non exploitability of Windows at all. Not only is this argument well known to be false (security through obscurity), Microsoft's products also show how consistently it fails in the real world.

    So.. the only argument you have there is that it is in itself reasonable for them to want to hide certain information. Too bad that due to their own misbehavior in the past, they are not allowed to hide some information that they'd like to keep hidden. Since they didn't comply, they got fined.

  15. Are you really that stupid, or are you trolling? by schon · · Score: 3, Informative

    I can run a mixed Windows and Linux system in either a flat TCP/IP network or a Microsoft style Active Directory. I can even use a Linux box as the DC. How exactly does that not mean "interoperability"?

    Because MS does everything in its' power to make it not interoperate.

    because offering a peek at the goddamned source code didn't go far enough, right?

    No, it didn't. Not when the "peek" meant that you can't actually fscking use anything you might learn from it. If the "offer" didn't include a draconian NDA, then it might have come close.

    What great MS spin you have there. You must work for the justice department.

  16. Re:so? by Criterion · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Yeah, because offering a peek at the goddamned source code didn't go far enough, right?"

    No, because the source code is NOT what was ASKED FOR. How can people not understand this? Go read the halloween papers. You will see why MS went as far as to try giving source instead of actual API documentation, because that is how badly they DON'T WANT to do that, not because they can't, or it's too hard as they say.

    Here, feel free to read up on what is actually going on right here...
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html
    then maybe you'll see how much of a bully MS actually is. Anything that would put a stop to that has my full approval.

    --
    We have enough youth, how about a fountain of SMART?