Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Hit With 280m Euro Fine
Craig Mason writes "The BBC Reports that "Microsoft has been fined 280.5m euros ($357m; £194m) by the European Commission for failing to comply with an anti-competition ruling.
The software giant was hit by the fine following a long-running dispute between the US firm and EU regulators.
The move follows a landmark EU ruling in 2004, which ordered Microsoft to provide rivals with information about its Windows operating system.
EU regulators also warned Microsoft it could face new fines of 3m euros a day.""
MSFT has a market cap of 230-something billion. Substantial? Not really.
Acording to wikipedia, it will take them 2 days to recover it. Big deal.
What happens if they don't pay?
Meta will eat itself
what a small slap on the wrist which is small even by the standards that the EU set themselves, typical, the fine should have been over 1.8 bn euros if they'd done what they said (about 3m euros a day backdated to 2004)... why so small?
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
so, you must be living in the United States of Protectionism?
Like, "our documentation wasn't good enough", or "those commissioners are too dumb to understand we don't deserve to be punished?"
The real problem, of course, is that Windows is such a huge hairball -- as Scott McNealy so aptly put it -- that they don't really know how to unbundle. Complying with the law is just as late as everything else is.
But before we all bash them too too hard -- where, again, are the usable Linux desktops that we'd like to have to replace Windows???
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
The same thing that happens whenever a big company doesnt pay a fine. Absolutly nothing.
Since you cant put a corporate entity in jail, and current structures are such that shareholders and executives face few legal penalties for the actions of the corporation (rather than thier own personal actions, such as in the enron ordeal) there's little real incentive for them to actualy pay up.
1. 280 million Euros is a drop in the bucket for M$.
2. They will delay, stall, and avoid paying for as long as possible.
3. When #2 fails, they will magically announce that they are in compliance.
4. ?????
5. Profit!
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
In Microsoft's case this would be about $5.5m-a-day.'
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c55bc756-1047-11db-8f6f-00 00779e2340.html
I would imagine that there would be stiffer penalties (i.e., non-financial aimed at curtailing MSFT's ability to trade in the EU) available if MSFT continued to defy the commission. If there were not this would be a de facto admission that companies can break the law in the EU with impunity if they are rich enough. I very much doubt the commission would tolerate that state of affairs.
The fine is based on the period december 16th, 2005 till june 20th, 2006. Microsoft had till December 16th to fullfil the requirements of the EC. Remember that this fine is added to the original fined 497M in 2004. And the EC is still counting until Microsoft has delivered all required documentation, but the ticker now says 3m per day. I don't believe there's a deadline set yet.. But i wouldn't be suprised if that would be set anywhere around December 20th 2006 (6 months as of june).
The idea is that the EU claims (rather correctly, and you'll see why this is not an issue) that MS used it's desktop monopoly to attempt to gain a monopoly in the media player market. They were then forced to unnbundle WMP, which they did in Windows N. Also to pay that original fine we already heard about last year.
Now here's where you lost the trail; the contention now is NOT ABOUT WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER. It's about underlying windows APIs that the EU claims MS is leveraging to use their DESKTOP os monopoly (which is okay) to shoehorn their way higher up in the server space. What they required MS to do was provide their competition with information about the windows OS that would let competing products interoperate as smoothly as microsoft products.
It's kind of a convoluted, complicated, and misreported case. The EU commision is saying "Look, you can't hide these details about your desktop os just so nobody can make a (whatever server) as good as yours, you can make the whatever server, but your competitors need to have equal footing. SO tell them how (whatever) works."
theres a bunch more, 12000 pages of docs, source code sharing (under a restrictive license competitors must pay for, this is more complicated due to the possibility of DMCA claims) etc.
just imagine what such an action would do to their credit rating
Ohhh I never thought of that. It will be a really huge problem for Microsoft if they ever need to purchase some new company cars but the bank won't loan them the money...
How will they cope?
I'll probably be modded down for this...
It's not really hurting them financially, but maybe all these fines will a.) start adding up and b.) start making average people pay attention to how MS is screwing other companies up. But chances are, the average person doesn't care about MS's tactics, all they want is their damn computer to work, politics be damned. And that is why, at the end of the day, MS wins. (Mayhaps that made no sense, but it's late and I'm dead tired)
Fighting over religion is like seeing whose imaginary friend is best.
EU: MS, you're fined 1.5 M a day.
... I mean, hell, if I didn't pay a speeding ticket I'd be in jail before this year is over, not next or some decade. What's a fine good for if the one fined doesn't bother paying?
MS: Ok.
(pause a year)
EU: MS, you didn't pay, you're fined 2.5m a day.
MS: Ok.
(pause a year)
EU: MS, you still didn't pay, you're fined 3.5m a day.
MS: ok.
Is it me or
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What would happen to the world if Microsoft said "Ok, enough's enough. 'Frig' you all!" and shuts down!
The people who made the decision would get sued by their shareholders, employees and their customers simultaneously.
So a company can, at max, be fined 5% of its income.
I, on the other hand, can be fined for amounts that exceed my income by a few 100 percent.
I'd sue. If I could afford it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Does a guy driving a hummer really notice a 1-inch speedbump?
yes when he hits it at 80mph, it will rattle his teeth and probably launch him to the ceiling.
It's persepctive. A ferrari testerosa will feel it at 5 mph, the hummer will feel it at 20+mph
the ferarri is much more expensive and better built.
SO are you equating microsoft with a large lumbering overpriced and slow vehicle that is horribly inefficient?
In fact, as with any situation where supply is (actually) relatively inelastic, if the supply side suddenly increased the price would drop dramatically. If Bill wanted to sell all his shares on Monday, how much do you think he would get for them? A lot, but nothing like the current price. The shares would be suspended as they started to go into freefall. Goes for houses, goes for Rembrandts, goes for shares. At one time during the Tokyo land price boom, Tokyo was capitalised at more, I believe, than the entire real estate of the US. Would you have swapped the US for metropolitan Tokyo?
Microsoft's market capitalisation is unimportant and meaningless; what matters is the effect of ongoing fines on their day to day operations, the market perception, and the buying decisions made by large institutions who will be reading all about it in the FT, Handelsblatt etc.
Pining for the fjords
Nothing. It's simple as that. Nothing would happen, immediately.
Of course, there would be a huge vacuum in the end user OS market. But then, there's nobody that keeps you from copying your OS. People would probably not be able to activate their WinXP anymore (unless someone writes a, then legal, crack/patch for it), so they would probably step back to Win2k. Copy it, it's legal (the one holding the rights is "dead". Because if there was someone who picked up the rights for the systems, the whole point would be moot since he would also be responsible to keep the system running).
For the next 3-4 years, people would 'survive' on the old systems. They're good enough to exist for a little longer. And then other OS manufacturers will step in. Apple will certainly try to push into the market, now that they have the ability to run on x86 systems. Linux distributions will try to expand their market share, trying to break into the low-end user market. Sun might try a stunt to get out of the hole they're in. And of course IBM would certainly try to regain some of their business partners.
So I'd say if MS just said "fu.. you, I quit", the result would be a bomb in the IT sector, markets and stocks would go bonkers for a few days or even weeks, but I doubt there would be any real fallout.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, the EU is comparable to a Federal Government. The money will be added to the total EU budget.
Yes, I noticed that. However, the comparison is actually "Mac vs PC", not "Mac vs Microsoft". I can't buy a PC from Microsoft, I can buy a PC from Dell. Or HP. Or Fred down the road if I give him the cash to build one.
Dell, HP and Fred-down-the-road can bundle whatever applications they like. Years ago a lot of budget places used to bundle Lotus Smartsuite to keep their prices down vs bundling Office. So the comparison is valid. And yes, having no marketshare does rather free you from monopolist rules because, pretty much by definition, you're not a monopolist.
Cheers,
Ian
I hope they use it to switch away from MS products, and not give it right back to MSFT by upgrading to Vista.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Form a group with your fellow 2nd world countries.
Have you ever compared the GDP of the EU with that of USA?
I'll probably be modded down for this...
1) Yes, the EU can enforce the money. If MS doesn't pay, EU can hit them with sanctions (what do you think, how big is the EU part of MS revenue pool. Right, pretty relevant) and finally seize their physical assets. (Guess what, MS exists outside the US)
2) MS has no threatening potential against the EU. What should they do: Increase prices? --> antitrust case! Threaten to pull out? --> They would cut their own profits significantly. EU could immediately legalize copies from the US (they wouldn't, but let's say Win/Office is declared important for national security or something...)
3) The US government will not put pressure on the EU here. Yes, they may protest, yes, they may have some impact, but come on guys. Where not talking about some small banana republic. Also look at the history of the EU anti-trust comission. Remember the GE/Honeywell-merger?
4) Yes, the fine does matter. 280m is a lot of money also for MS, from end of July on it will be 3m/day=~1b/year=~8% of EBIT (probably increasing over time). Yes, that DOES matter. What will financial markets think of that, what will that do to stock options of MS managers?
Summary: MS will pay, MS will obey and try to comply (they already started, just too slow...) with the ruling, MS will of course continue to use all means of lobbying (which is their good right).
Now the more interesting question is, if they have a chance with their appeal before the European Court of Justice, which doesn't look too bad for them...
One of the judges, acting as prosecutor, had read the charges. ... do you mean?" ... other methods."
"You may now offer whatever plea you wish to make in your own defence," he announced. Facing the platform, his voice inflectionless and peculiarly clear, Bill Gates answered:
"I have no defence."
"Do you --" The judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. "Do you throw yourself upon the mercy of this court?"
"I do not recognise this court's right to try me."
"What?"
"I do not recognise this court's right to try me."
"But, Mr. Gates, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime."
"I do not recognise my action as a crime."
"But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your software."
"I do not recognise your right to control the sale of my software."
"Is it necessary for me to point out that your recognition was not required?"
"No. I am fully aware of it and I am acting accordingly."
"Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?" asked the judge.
"No. I am complying with the law - to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defence is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice."
"But, Mr. Gates, the law provides specifically that you are to be given an opportunity to present your side of the case and to defend yourself."
"A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognised by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well. Do it." "Mr. Gates, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of the public good. Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to e their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."
"Are we to understand," asked the judge, "that you hold your own interests above the interests of the public?"
"I hold that such a question can never arise except in a society of cannibals."
"What
"I hold that there is no clash of interests among men who do not demand the unearned and do not practice human sacrifices."
"Are we to understand that if the public deems it necessary to curtail your profits, you do not recognise its right to do so?"
"Why, yes, I do. The public may curtail my profits any time it wishes - by refusing to buy my product."
"We are speaking of
"Any other method of curtailing profits is the method of looters - and I recognise it as such."
"Mr. Gates, this is hardly the way to defend yourself."
"I said that I would not defend myself."
"But this is unheard of! Do you realise the gravity of the charge against you?"
"I do not care to consider it."
"Do you realise the possible consequences of your stand?"
"Fully."
"It is the opinion of this court that the facts presented by the prosecution seem to warrant no leniency. The penalty which this court has the power to impose on you is extremely severe."
"Go ahead."
"I beg your pardon?"
"Impose it."
The three judges looked at one another. Then their spokesman turned back to Gates. "This is unprecedented," he said.
"It is completely irregular,
As I see it, the EU is telling Microsoft:
"Ok, Microsoft you had your chance to document your API's two years ago as you were told to, but instead you chose to try and mess with us and we just don't believe you when you said you made an honest effort to comply. So here is your fine. If you think you are going to appeal your way out of this ... good luck to you. Now we know that you are working to better your lives, and we want your compliance more than your money, so we won't hurt you as much as we could have. We actually want you to do business in the EU, and for that reason we will go easy on you this time. Only ... if you think you can make a fool of us again, prepare for fines that *are* hurtful."
There are worse attitudes I suppose.
It's because they have a monopoly -- all the restaurant/automobile/whatever analogies in the world don't matter, if you don't factor in the anti-competitive aspect of the monopoly. If Microsoft were smaller, they wouldn't be having a problem; it's only because of their extremely dominant position that they have to follow special rules, because otherwise it would be impossible to compete with them.
If you were a niche OS vendor and didn't want to share information on the inner workings of your system, so that you could make more money selling a highly-integrated application stack, that would probably be OK. It becomes anti-competitive when you have such an absurd proportion of the market that it's basically impossible for any company to compete with you, unless they make products that run on your OS. In that case, by keeping the details to yourself, you can suppress realistic competition indefinitely.
Since this suppression of competition hurts the market in general and is bad for the consumer, I think the EU and other regulatory bodies are more than justified in doing whatever they think is necessary in order to remedy the situation. In this case, they're not going after the monopoly itself (as some of the proposed solutions to the US anti-trust case did) but after the behavior that suppresses competition itself: basically acknowledging that Windows is the de-facto standard and will be for some time, and requiring that Microsoft stop tilting the playing field in their own favor.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
It's not Mac OS X that bundles more software, it's the Mac computer. To compare apples to apples (no pun intended), you'd need to be comparing an iMac to a Dell or Compaq PC. All the big apps that the commercials brag about are actually part of the iLife suite, that Apple includes in when you buy a Mac. In the event that the EU doesn't like Apple including iLife with all new Macs, they can easily comply and include a mail-in coupon for a free copy of iLife or something like that. It's not like the apps are tightly integrated into the OS and they'd complain that they can't remove iPhoto without breaking the entire OS.
As far as apps that are bundled with the OS, it's mostly all just small utilities (font book, activity monitor, calculator, etc.), OS features (Automator, Dashboard, etc.), and then the only larger apps are Safari, Mail, and iChat. And if you don't like them, you can simply drag them to the trash can and they're gone forever, unlike another popular OS from Redmond. IIRC, iTunes isn't even included as part of the OS but rather part of iLife (but is also a free download).
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
The parent isn't insightful, it's simply wrong. Under WIPO treaties, to which pretty much every major economic power in Europe is a signatory, the EU can do no such thing. All the posts about cancelling Microsoft's copyrights are fantasy. Then again, pretty much every other post in this discussion seems to think this is just an ineffective slap on the wrist, without considering the likely consequences.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
First, making a company give competitors trade secrets in immoral.
Sure, it isn't nice. But then again the goal of sanctions isn't to be nice but to remedy the problem. MS was found to be in violation of antitrust law, and forcing MS to document interfaces so that competitors can more efficiently make interoperatible software was seen as the most efficient remedy.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
...next they'll be fining car manufacturers for selling cars with a specific brand of stereo/sound system and being anti-competitive.
Your knee-jerk argument doesn't really hold up. Let's try some slight modification and see if we can get it to work, eh?
Imaging one car manufacturer was responsible for producing 95% of the cars in circulation and aggresively used its position to limit the availability of cars from other manufacturers or the emergence of new manufacturers.
Imagine they not only bundled their own brand stereo with the car, they made it virtually impossible to remove the stereo system without causing severe damage to the car, so that even if you were to install an additional stereo you'd have to keep the original stereo.
Now imagine the car manufacturer starts using its imense wealth and market position to persuade content providers to release music encoded in a format only the above stereo can play (or charging hefty license fees to the smaller car/stereo manufacturers if they want to use this technology themselves to actually be able to play music).
Finally, imagine the car manufacturer went out into the world and used its wealth to influence political decisions in their favour to help them maintain an effective stranglehold on the market and, at the same time, insidiously "educate" people while they're still at school into thinking that only one car manufacturer can give them what they need.
Hope that helps.
I was once an Institutional Investor-ranked analyst following Microsoft, although that was a long time ago ...
Market cap does matter. Microsoft can sell stock to get cash -- or rather forgo repurchasing it.
The income statement matters somewhat. If this were a true foreseeable-future ongoing cost, it would matter a lot more. But it will be over soon, one way or the other.
The balance sheet it what matters most directly. They can pay the fines out of cash easily, I should think, not that I've actually looked at their balance sheet for quite a while.
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
Microsoft has a monopoly. Therefore, it's a pretty good assumption that they've done their market research and have already set the price of their products for maximum revenue generation: the point at which the sales you'd lose from increasing the price overwhelm the additional income. (There's probably an economics term for this point, but it's been a while...)
Any involuntary price increase at this point can't be a good thing for them, because (assuming rational behavior) they've already set their prices for optimum profit. Increasing them further might not make people immediately switch from Windows, but it could change purchasing patterns in other ways: slowing the upgrade cycle, making piracy or theft more attractive, etc.
True, most people would just bend over and take it, but Microsoft is already giving it to them as hard as they can -- forcing them to be harder isn't good for them. The damage to MS might be insignificant, though.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
This is just getting stupid.
M$ is getting F'd in the A because they built an o/s that a business 'chooses' to use. That business wants to get additional software that integrates with their servers as smooth as possible. Business chooses M$ software because it smoother than the competition (and not by much I must add).
I really don't understand???? Whats the problem here?
Because of something called a 'monopoly'. Microsoft have overwhelming dominance on the desktop. They are using that dominance to sell servers, which is a separate market. Using monopoly dominance in one market to influence sales in another is illegal.
Microsoft server software integrates more smoothly than the competition with their desktop systems because their desktop systems require specific protocols for this integration which Microsoft are keeping secret. Other systems have managed to replicate this only by reverse-engineering what is seen to go across networks.
Microsoft could easily have provided good integration with desktop systems using standard or existing protocols (they have proved in the past that they can produce quality implementations of such things).
None of this would matter if Microsoft were not effectively a monopoly presence on the desktop (that does not mean total dominance - it means enough presence to seriously influence other markets).
Clear now?
The funny thing is, the US has unoffically admitted that the EU stance is actually quite a good one - http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,3...39278 431,00.htm
This procedure will benefit everyone; more-opennes == more competition == greater choice for consumers.
throw new NoSignatureException();
What will work is redirecting the money wasted on legal action in a bonafide attempt to ascertain the feasibility of switching servers and workstations to Linux. They won't be able to do it everywhere, but they could concentrate on the following:
Investors won't freak out because of a arbitrary fine that Microsoft won't end up paying (they'll settle on a lower amount or give away licenses or something). Investors will freak if an entire continent starts a concerted effort to shut down a significant part of Microsoft's revenue stream.
The EU has telegraphed this fine for a year. It could have easily been avoided. Gates and Ballmer may have a large cash hoard. I doubt if their stockholders appreciate them lighting it on fire.
an ill wind that blows no good
The OSS community would gain an army of slow working non-documenting bug writing members.
I am as big of a Linux finatic as the next slashdotter, but I am having a hard time understanding the basis for the magnitude of this fine. I am a firm believer that Microsoft has its monopoly because Microsoft Office has consistently been the most robust office package on the market. I have to run VMWare at home just because I can't use another office product.
However, the information that the EU demands seems to be nothing more than an extortion attempt. Samba has worked flawlessly with Microsoft's SMB implementation for years, and I can add linux to a windows domain, authenticate agains a Microsoft ADS and plugin to Microsft Exchange server with Evolution. So what is the real issue, all of these functions have been created without taking anything from Microsoft, but rather from innovation from the Linux community.
I am not going to debate whether or not Microsoft has used its market share for good or ill, but I don't see how it much affects any other operating system. Corporations have always commanded the popular OS and companies choose the OS on what platform will make the employees the most efficient. Microsoft Office is still unreplaceable and it is the main anchor to the Windows platform. Office 2007 is one of the best software products I have used to date, so I don't see that going away. It will be the slow detereriation of the desktop that erodes the grip of Windows, not litigation from governments over non-existent issues
At least this is my take. If I had a car that controlled 90% of the market, would it be fair to make me compete without seats or a stereo? Who even cares, linux and apple technologies and innovations are maturing and besting such commodity apps. such as media players, web browsers, picture managers, etc.
Math
Microsoft has a monopoly. Therefore, it's a pretty good assumption that they've done their market research and have already set the price of their products for maximum revenue generation: the point at which the sales you'd lose from increasing the price overwhelm the additional income. (There's probably an economics term for this point, but it's been a while...)
The term is "monopoly profits".
Any involuntary price increase at this point can't be a good thing for them, because (assuming rational behavior) they've already set their prices for optimum profit. Increasing them further might not make people immediately switch from Windows, but it could change purchasing patterns in other ways: slowing the upgrade cycle, making piracy or theft more attractive, etc.
Yes, it does, basically, work like this. The point of charging "monopoly" profits is to get the consumers to buy an optimal number of products, X, at a high price, Y. The X sold under a system of monopoly profits is significantly lower than X2 that would have been sold under a free market, but the Y is increased at such a level (compared to the Y2 of a free market) that it doesn't matter.
The sole limiting factor of monopoly profits is the market's ability to bear these prices. At a certain point, consumers run out of dollars to spend on Operating Systems; that's the max price.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Competition: Commission Decision of 12 July 2006 to impose penalty payments on Microsoft - frequently asked questions
What is Microsoft required to do?
The European Commission's Decision of March 2004 required that Microsoft take various steps to put an end to its illegal and anti-competitive conduct (see IP/04/382 and MEMO/04/70). These included obligations to:
On 10 November 2005, the Commission warned Microsoft, pursuant to Article 24(1) of Regulation 1/2003, that should Microsoft not comply with these obligations by 15 December 2005, it would face a daily penalty payment of up to 2 million (see IP/05/1695). Article 24 of Regulation 1/2003 entitles the Commission to impose such penalty payments not exceeding 5% of average daily turnover in the preceding business year per calendar day to compel companies to put an end to infringements of EC Treaty anti-trust rules, where an infringement has been established by a previous Commission anti-trust decision.
Why has the Commission levied a penalty payment for non-compliance on only the failure to provide interoperability information, and not the terms on which that information is provided (i.e. the first and not the second of the two points from the 10th November 2005 Article 24(1) Decision)?
As regards the provision of information on reasonable terms, Microsoft has announced that it will review the pricing of its protocols once revised technical documentation has been submitted. Furthermore, a final assessment on the degree of innovation, if any, that is contained in the interoperability information, and hence the reasonableness of the royalties that Microsoft charges, can only be made once the technical documentation embodying that interoperability information is complete and accurate.
Why has the Commission decided that the fine levied should be 1.5 million per day?
Of the two elements of non-compliance identified in the Article 24(1) Decision, complete and accurate interoperability information is a prerequisite for interoperable work group server operating systems to be developed. Microsoft's non-compliance in this regard has eliminated the effectiveness of the remedy. Consequently, the Commission has taken the view that failure to comply in this respect should at this stage constitute a larger part of the daily penalty payment identified in the Article 24(1) Decision of 10 November 2005.
Why has the Commission taken today's Decision given that Microsoft is in the process of preparing revised technical documentation?
Microsoft's obligation was to comply with the March 2004 decision's requirement to make available the relevant technical documentation as of June 2004. As of 20th June 2006, Microsoft had not done that, and the Commission decided that it was appropriate to levy a fine on Microsoft for its non-compliance so far.
More than two years after the 2004 Decision, the Commission has therefore been obliged to resort to formal measures to ensure compliance. If any revised documentation that Microsoft submits proved to be complete and accurate, then Microsoft would not be subject to further daily penalty payments from the date on which complete and accurate technical documentation was provided. This would be the best outcome. However, if Microsoft continued t
The Free Software Foundation Europe, who has been supporting the European Commission from the start, has launched a press release on the EC's decision.
Thank you for agreeing that trade secrets are bad for competition. True, copyright, licencing and certainly patents prevent competition. Which is why the anti-monopoly laws curb their power when they outlive their purpose. But complete deregulation, as you seem to advocate it, is not the solution, it's complete madness. If you take away copyright, you take away any incentive anyone might have to publish. If you take away patents and licencing in general you take away any incentive to innovate. Government is not evil, it's a huge protection and a necessary burden.
I disagree with you. I've written two books (both becoming free e-books) that I never used copyright to protect my creations. I sold them, and I continue to reap profits from their sale. I maintain about a dozen blogs and websites where I repudiate copyright and allow others to take my words intact and use them as their own. As long as the ideas get out there, my income goes up even if no one knows that I wrote the words. I also use my freely distributed words to reinforce my hourly rate, which goes up each and every year well over inflation's rise.
The blogosphere and F/OSS movement both contradict the idea that people will only create if their works are protected. The garage band and pub band industry also rejects the claim. MOST artists care less about protecting their art as long as they are making an income. No record label would take another artist's works and distribute it as their own -- the label would jeopardize their future if they attempted to defraud the public. The Internet protects the original author's ego more than any other distribution scheme in the past.
What gave MS its edge vs. Digital was the deal with PC makers to buy MSDOS for all their PC's, whether they installed it or not. So if a customer wanted DRDOS he had to pay for MSDOS as well.
So? When I sell my labors, I tell my customers that if they want a discount, they better buy what I recommend. If they don't, my rate doubles. Some customers prefer to go direct, so I charge them a higher rate. Microsoft has EVERY right to contract their stipulations -- PC makers had every right to refuse the contract and sell hardware with opposing operating systems. The consumers decided they wanted Microsoft, not DR-DOS. On top of that, the State's enabling of copyright and patents prevented DR-DOS from legally reverse engineering the MS code to sell a competing product. The State restrained trade, not Microsoft.
Deregulation is what gave California its power outages and England it's shortage of tap water.
Lies. Myth. Completely false. Deregulation NEVER happened in California. In both cases, wholesale costs were partially deregulated, but retail costs were not -- and competition was NEVER allowed into the picture. See this article: The Myth of De-Regulation and this article: The Failure of State-Designed Markets In BOTH cases, government is to blame 100%. Why did only California experience these outages when other states are even more free in energy policy? Corrupt politicians and corrupt public policy.
What you need is not deregulation, it's BALANCED regulation. Protect innovation, production, implementation, commerce, etc. until the players become too rapacious and the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. Which why patents have a limited lifespan, btw.
No patent really seems to work, though. Look at cell phones -- almost all of them are nearly identical in how they work, but every phone has a dozen patents pending. None of the patents mean anything to the cartelized players in the game -- they only serve to restrict new players from competing. We'd have a cheaper and higher quality world without patents.
This had nothing to do with the state, it was the deal with the hardware manufacturer(s) (and the fact that the hardware manufacturer had to honour their contract -- are y
I think the real sting is that, probably, in whole Europe, on the news (radio, TV), you could hear Neelie Kroes say that "Nobody is above the law" in regard to the way Microsoft behaved.
There was this little incident in Europe's "capital", Brussels, about eight years ago...I still get the giggles when I think about it.
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
The difference is that you can't uninstall MS software when it's bundled with Windows.
You are incorrect. The difference is MS is bundling products with a monopolized product while Apple is not (probably). I say probably because if Apple is found to have a monopoly on portable music players (they have 70% or so now) then it is illegal for them to bundle other products with it (iTunes). Of course several courts are now investigating this issue. Apple and MS are both held to the same standard, most people are failing to understand what that standard is.
.. or watch out MS.Astroturfers on board ..
"The reason the fine is less than what had been threatened in the press"
Can you provide any citation from the commision to a reduction in fine for good behavour. There is a December reference to a $2m per day from the Commision. Which if my arithmetic is correct, is one million less then the current fine.
"Microsoft met with the EU Trustee Neil Barrett, who "clarified the requirements for the documents"."
Microsoft were compelled to 'meet' Barrett as they failed to comply with its ruling. What he actually said was the documents were "totally unfit for its intended purpose".
You put that as if MS was the concerned party somehow trying to play honest broker to the nasty Commision. In fact MS were compelled to 'meet' Neil Barrett after they first tried to have him removed. You see the Commision is a legally conviened body in judgement of Microsofts' misconduct. It's not as if the guilty party gets to 'meet' the Judge and 'clarify' things for him.
"Barrett also provided Microsoft with "aggressive series of deadlines" for providing the documentation in accordance with the clarified requirements."
So its the Commision who's at fault for not clarifying requirments. Instead of what is really happening, MS wilfully ignoring the instruction to open the protocols to third party developers.
"Since that time, Microsoft has been working overtime to provide the documentation,"
If they are complient why are they being fined $357m and a further $3m euros per day?
"Microsoft has met all milestones in the "series of deadlines" laid down by Barret"
If they are complient why are they being fined $357m and a further $3m euros per day?
"the EU knows that Microsoft provided the new documentation in good faith, and they'll just work with Microsoft to address any further deficiencies."
If Microsoft provided the new documentation in good faith why are they being fined $3 million per day.
Why does the Commision need to 'work with Microsoft'? Did Leona Helmsley get to 'work' with the Judge when she was caught cheeting on taxes?
In real life, are you a PR hack for Microsoft?
Is slashdot becoming totally overrun with MS.Astroturfers?
davecb5620@gmail.com