Slashdot Mirror
'No Alternative' To Microsoft Fine
An anonymous reader writes "News.com is running an interview with Neelie Kroes, the competition commissioner for the EU. She confirms that the massive fines to Microsoft are absolutely necessary, and goes into some of the commissions reasons for slapping the giant down." From the article: "Microsoft has claimed that its obligations in the decision are not clear, or that the obligations have changed. I cannot accept this characterization--Microsoft's obligations are clearly outlined in the 2004 decision and have remained constant since then. Indeed, the monitoring trustee appointed in October 2005, from a shortlist put forward by Microsoft, believes that the decision clearly outlines what Microsoft is required to do. I must say that I find it difficult to imagine that a company like Microsoft does not understand the principles of how to document protocols in order to achieve interoperability. "
"I must say that I find it difficult to imagine that a company like Microsoft does not understand the principles of how to document protocols in order to achieve interoperability."
You must be new here...
What's so hard to understand about this? This is a company which regards their software as "most secure ever" just before a several years of gaping security flaws are revealed and exploited. Many of the security flaws are in the gaps between divisions, where one division sees the appropriate way to validate passed paremeters is to trust everything is just peachy.
It's a cultural thing, sieze markets today, and bluff your way past the carnage tomorrow. e.g. revealing Windows security flaws should be halted by the Department of Homeland Security as it represents a threat to businesses which use the software (no liability is expressed or implied by the jokers who make billions selling it, however)
Microsoft should license rights to use those egg-headed Precious Moments figurines and release one each time they're caught bullshitting on trying to quash other markets with bundled give-aways or why some open standard isn't for the best. "Me sowwy!" It always has been and always will be about promoting Microsoft, to keep it relevent and necessary to guarantee the gravy train never ends. Thanks EU for having some balls, which the US DoJ doesn't.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Something about "old dogs" and "new tricks."
At least this is a bit more than the wrist tap Microsoft received for its anti-trust violations in the US.
Great, they slapped Microsoft hands for this but who is getting all this money and what are they gonna do with it?
I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
How about that?
Said in a funny European / Clouseau accent
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
When does this become more than a case of he-said she-said? Microsoft claims its obligations were not clear, others claim they were. Isn't that the ideal situation for keeping this in the courts indefinitely? I have to think that we would have seen this all across the usual news channels (TV, newspaper, magazines) if this fine was really going to have teeth this time around. The whole case seems destined to simmer beneath the surface. I hope that the fine actually will be paid, but can anyone outline how that could happen?
Neelie Kroes doesn't seem to understand the fundamentals of business. If the EU fines MS $357M, MS can simply raise the price of their European software by $357M. The net effect is that the European consumers pay the fine rather than MS itself.
why should it be easier for a company to actually implement an interface with microsoft's software, than it is for microsoft to only document the interface with that same software?
i don't see what the issue is here. why is this even being discussed here every single time that the EU lawsuit comes up?
The Department of Justice did at one point (I mean, they did win the antitrust case against Microsoft you know) but when the regime change occurred their priority system got readjusted. At least, that's how it appeared to me at the time.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The Department of Justice did at one point (I mean, they did win the antitrust case against Microsoft you know) but when the regime change occurred their priority system got readjusted. At least, that's how it appeared to me at the time.
Oh, obviously. It's like Bush hung out the shingle "Open for Business with Business" when the greatly watered down justice was finally meted out, and astoundingly Microsoft continues to violate even those terms with seeming impunity.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Spendid bit of ad hominem flame baiting/trolling there. To be clear. Are you saying that the EU Commission is being "corrupt" in some way here? I'm not a fan of much of the Commission's work and its inability to get it's budget through audit for (how many?) years is ludicrous. In this case though, it appears ti have been transparent and straightforward.
This is a company which regards their software as "most secure ever" just before a several years of gaping security flaws are revealed and exploited.
They said that it was the most secure Windows so far; are you disputing this?
revealing Windows security flaws should be halted by the Department of Homeland Security as it represents a threat to businesses which use the software
I can actually see the logic in that. I do not agree with it (if one person has found an exploitable flaw, chances are someone else has or will), but it's not an entirely stupid idea on the face of it (you have to think about it to realise how dangerous it is).
no liability is expressed or implied by the jokers who make billions selling it, however
Very very few software licences do not disclaim liability, the GPL included. It's extremely hard (and time consuming, and so expensive) to create software that can be guaranteed exploit-free, and this difficulty increases as the complexity of the software increases.
Thanks EU for having some balls, which the US DoJ doesn't.
Well there's one thing we can agree on. I personally think that MS's software often gets too raw a deal here, but some of their business practices are deplorable. It's nice to see that someone finally has the guts to stand up to them and actually impose the punishment they threatened them with for a change.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I do not agree that paying up the money is a big deal for M$. It will not change it's behavior. I was at M$ one day presenting them a Field Service system. The first quest the program manager of that group asked me point blank was - "How much is it going to cost us so that you do not do this on the Palm?" This is their attitude. Money no matter. The best method to cut this monster to size is to seperate it into parts - OS and development platforms, Office apps, Business Apps.
NO INTEROPERABILITY: This is their established mode of business.
Even this fine is nothing. Equivalent to ten days profits.
All this is is a simple tariff on doing buisiness in the EU.
Paying the fine is the most economic alternative for MS.
And have you heard about competition? It is out there and if Microsoft suddenly increased their prices - woohoo! On the other hand you do know that the EU commission can take action against such measures by Microsoft? You really need to do better research before you post - or at least know something on the subject before you reply.
They could (if the EU does not prevent them), but that would only serve to deter sales, which for large "enterprise" organizations always involve heavy discounts from the "list" price anyway. Unlikely.
But even if that happened, would it be a bad thing? Wouldn't that make Linux or other Windows alternatives look that much better?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
such a fine is something they might not willingly forgoe.
Well... unless, you know, Microsoft had actually just obeyed the law, or obeyed the court decision to begin with.
Then there never would have been any fine.
But, of course, that's ridiculous, since expecting Microsoft to obey the law is evil anti-capitalist statist communism.
i see government trying to foster competition in the market. what do you see that i don't?
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
At least, that's how it appeared to me at the time.
Only if you ignored the appeals court ruling, which Microsoft mostly won. Bush probably did go easy on MS, but the government did not have the court rulings to impose EU-style penalties. This would have been true if Gore was elected also.
yeah and who gets the Hynix RAM price fixing money ? or the Elliot Spitzer Spyware settlements (even though the world is affected) or the Music price fixing settlements or the Music Payola fines or the Sony rootkit settlements or just about any other anti-trust/corruption filing in the USA ?
im still waiting for my cash are you ?
I thought the golden rule was those who has the gold makes the rules. There is a difference in meaning.
Obviously, Neelie is not a programmer and has never tried to write a program in a Microsoft environment, or even tried to figure out what their documentation is supposed to mean... If anything.
The example below is my favourite piece of Microsoftism, from the "I cannot believe that I am actually writing this" department:
IXMLDOMDocumentPtr pXML = NULL;
...
HRESULT hr = pXML.CreateInstance(_uuidof(DomDocument40));
pXML->async = VARIANT_FALSE;
pXML->validateOnParse = VARIANT_FALSE;
pXML.Release();
And yes, this compiles and works. Surely there must be other gems of Microsoft protocols out there. Any other proposals?
I believe the Comission is wrong, and the companies that are lobbying the commission to get access to these protocols are even more wrong. We should not want more software that relies on more Microsoftisms. Au contraire.
I wish I had a list of the companies that are sueing for these protocols being made public. Then I would at least know whose software I certainly do not want to buy.
I don't see what everyone is getting all worked up over.
This isn't all that much more than the EU fined the company I work for... That didn't really change things for the other divisions so I expect MS won't change much either.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Which of course makes her decision wrong, or what do you mean? What else could she do? On a free market you can't really prevent a company from doing that (raising prices to compensate); there are no laws against it unless it's excess (perhaps, but IANAL and not a business person either).
M$ will certainly distribute the leak troughout the product line to compensate, but what counts is not only the money they are being charged, but also the fact that they *ARE* being charged and it's public and well known and with reason. Furthermore, don't think they're going to uphold this forever, nor do i think they are willing to uphold whatever compensation they might be executing as a response forever.
If MICROS~1 isn't goint to comly SOMEtime, then EU will dig even deeper in their pockets until this really ugly evil stuff inside Microsoft sees the day of light and then we'll be talking, to use a figure of speech here.
Right now, they are still pretty naive (EU), and yes, they sure need money, but even if their agenda isn't straight-only to give M$ a kick in the butt and they have other interests there like perhaps the money itself, they are nevertheless on the right course since if, as i've already said, Microsoft won't comply sometime, they'll going to push evefn more, and might it be for the money, but M$ *will* get to feel the push either way.
Engineers hate writing documentation. I rarely see decent docs even for published APIs that people are encouraged to use. The EU is demanding detailed documentation for ones that aredeveloped in an ad-hoc manner, and changed arbitrarily. Most of the coders probably worked out whatthe software does by looking at the code.
Sure, not all software developers are like this, but I'll bet MS are.
There is a big difference between the people at microsoft knowing how to document protocols and microsoft the corporate entity knowing how to document a protocol.
The main difference is that a corporate entity of the size of microsoft is represented by Lawyers, not engineers.
If they say say they cannot comply, and the lawyers provide lots of reasons which keep the facts in dispute, then they get to pay a nothing fine and maintain their advantage.
Losing their monopoly position would potentially mean the collapse of their major product lines, in terms of market share.
I'd be willing to bet that if microsoft the corporate entity felt this was something they desperatelly needed, they'd throw the engineers at it.
"I thought the golden rule was those who has the gold makes the rules. There is a difference in meaning."
Your statement is also correct, and the meanings are different. Knowing both meanings, both wordings is important. It works both ways. "Those who have the gold make the rules" recognizes the reality that the rich use their influence to influence law and policy. "Those who make the rules get the gold" recognizes the reality that those in government use its unrivaled power to enrich and empower themselves. If you deny the reality of both, you aren't a civically-aware person and should really stay away from the voting booth or else you might cause some real damage.
Where were you when the voynix came?
....and give him a hahmboogehr!
Where were you when the voynix came?
Do they? Do they really have to pay? Is the EU really in a position to block sales of the worlds most "popular" OS for business? I think while it would not endure Microsoft to the EU, they would be politically unable to ban Microsoft from selling their product to Europeans.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
For a company in which just one member of it is worth at least 100 times that, how is this going to do anything?
I make websites and stuff. Buy one.
But those two sayings are contradictory. Either MS has the gold and make their own rules, or the EU government makes the rules, and takes the gold from Microsoft. You can't have it both ways. Unless you have a situation like you do in the US where the people in government are often the people in control of large corporations. As far as I know, Bill Gates and Steve Balmer aren't at the head of the EU.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
When a sovereign country (or the legal representative of something like a dozen or more sovereign countries....) says you're wrong, you're WRONG.
Your characterization is the equivalent of Charles Manson saying the reason for his prison term was that he didn't understand his obligations.
Microsoft knows damn well what's expected of it, they just don't want to do it because they won't survive in an open market. Too damn bad they're fighting against the commodization of software - a type of fight no one in the history of business has ever won.
My heart bleeds.
Great, they slapped Microsoft hands for this but who is getting all this money and what are they gonna do with it?
/.ers tens of millions wouldn't it? Oh yes, VOTE FOR ME!
I propose that there's some fund so that every time you have to spend 3 hours 'weeding' Windows for your parents or Auntie Doris or whoever you can bill the fund at $100 p/h for your time. Collectively this would make
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
i see government trying to foster competition in the market. what do you see that i don't?
That the government is evil!! Don't you see? Governments are evil! Governments are evil!! Governments are evil!!! The government just wants your money!!! Why don't you see how evil the government is??? Why do you want the government to take your money???
"But those two sayings are contradictory"
I said they were two different meanings. However, they do not contradict. It merely identifies two different groups which can abuse power. Too often, you get both working at the same time: the rich influencing government to act on their behalf with their money and at the same time government uses its power to enrich itself. The only way to reduce both problems, it would seem, to be to reduce the power and size of government itself.
Where were you when the voynix came?
...this is nothing short of extorsion.
\u262D = \u5350
What I'd like to know is how much it would actually cost them to go back into everything and document it all, probably a significant portion of the fine. I'm pretty sure the loss of market share alone would be substantially more than the fine anyway.
> Mod parent up! Look! The troll has a girlfriend!!! > Like ANY typical government body, the EU is greedy and practices the golden rule quite frequently: those who make the rules get the gold. So, Microsoft pays out a little money and boosts prices (passing it on to the consumer) while the Euro bureacrats get richer. O suuuuuuure... OMG ROLF DUD!!! Monopolists do not fix prices based on supply and demand. They are already at the maximum the market can pay, so they CAN'T charge more, because they will get LESS. More high-sea plundering and such... Besides, you imply that MS will NOT charge more if they don't pay the fine. Such a good idea... let's leave murderers out of jail, because they feel more inclined to kill eyewitnesses that can provide proof. I am sure the EU beurocrats care soooo much for the 230 million US$ MS will pay, that they will ignore their own anual budget of 121 billion Euros. And EU has GDP of about 12 100 billion Euros. > How does this help the computer users? Not at all. Imagine instead if they had punished Microsoft by forcing it in some way to be better to its consumers. Providing chance for the competition is the best way to ensure lower prices. If you haven't noticed, the price of the software has been rising, and for the hardware has been falling. Noooo, it is not the monopoly that gives them the chance to charge such money for the OS. > Or imagine if they had forced Microsoft to pay this money DIRECTLY to computer users. Now that is a neat idea. More than 90% of EU citizens have computers, so I suppose the money ARE going to computer users. > Nope, never going to happen. The main interest of the EU is in enriching itself, not helping anyone. No way the victims of Microsoft, however they are defined, are going to see justice however it is defined. Yes, EU's main interest is to enrich itself? Who is supposed to argue that. Just beacuse europeans prefer to be rich, not to have rich corporations doesn't mean they are stupid. Of cource, if you want another Enron to drag people (this time it may be you) down to financial death, go on. Nobody's stoping you.
While I agree completely that the EU is just as corrupt as any other government, I would not go so far as to say they are as corrupt as the US government. I'd like to point out that while the (total) fine of around 1 billion dollars, is very large, it is ridiculous to suggest that the EU is in it for the money. The projected EU GDP for 2006 is 13888 billion USD, and 1 measly billion more is hardly gonna make the commission salivate.
Do we know how this fine will be paid? In the past, MS has always tried to pay in gift vouchers, as far as I know - will they be allowed to do so this time? The mention of a blocked account would seem to imply cash, but does anyone know for sure?
Because there's a difference between a companies value and the amount of cash it can afford to spend. How much of that 'worth' is tied up in property, IP, bonds, etc. and how much of it is available as cold hard cash?
The whole point of a fine is to be a punishment, severe enough to bring it into line, but not severe enough to break it altogether. MS Europe's liquid assets also have to pay its day to day running costs, as well as any fines. With that in mind, the EC would be nuts to fine it too heavily.
At least, right now. If MS doesn't come into line, then it's likely that the EC will up the ante and approach the problem from the bottom up - keep raising the fines until they're big enough to make MS come into compliance, as opposed to aiming high and striking the heart with the first shot.
Found this at
http://msftee.spaces.msn.com/blog/cns!9886B42853C0 71E0!461.entry?
In our view, the issue here is not about a lack of compliance, it's about a lack of clarity about what the Commission's expectations were for "complete and accurate technical specifications." We began work on the technical documentation immediately upon receiving the Commission decision, and delivered more than 10,000 pages of documentation in December 2004. We did not receive substantive feedback until last September, nine months later. When it became clear that the Commission had different expectations over how the technical documents should be written, we repeatedly pressed for greater clarity. Then we delivered revisions promptly, offered unlimited technical assistance, and even made our source code available to competitors in an effort to resolve the impasse. In short, I truly believe the company responded quickly and in good faith to a government order that was unclear and undefined - and that we have complied with our obligations.
Despite all this effort, we've had a very hard time trying to get a clear statement from the Commission on how they want the technical documents to be written. This spring, we finally made a breakthrough after a group of engineers from Microsoft met with Professor Neil Barrett, the trustee appointed last fall by the Commission. A great deal of progress was made during these face-to-face meetings and an aggressive work plan was put in place to deliver revised documentation through a series of seven milestones, beginning in April and ending on July 18.
To meet the demands of the schedule, a team of more than 300 employees was assembled, including some of the company's most senior engineers. Many of those involved played a central role in writing the protocols covered by the documentation. This team has worked around the clock to successfully meet each of the six previous milestones. Their tireless and persistent efforts and the high quality of their work is a testament to the great things people can accomplish when they pull together in a time of need.
During the last few months, we've been encouraged by positive feedback we've received from EU's trustee. We had hoped that this effort would demonstrate to the Commission that we would be fully in compliance by their July deadline. The fact that the Commission decided to fine us despite our massive compliance efforts is disappointing. And it's hard to understand why the Commission is imposing this large fine when the process is finally working well and the agreed-upon finish line is still nearly two weeks away.
So what's next? First, we will push ahead to finish the technical documentation work later this month to meet the deadline established by the Commission. We are 100 percent committed to compliance, and we will not allow this fine to distract us from meeting our responsibilities.
Second, we will appeal this fine. We have great respect for the Commission, but we do not believe any fine - let alone a fine of this magnitude - is warranted given the lack of clarity in the Commission's original decision and our diligent, good-faith efforts to comply over the past two years.
Third, we will maintain our commitment to Europe. We will not allow this fine to affect our important relationship with the European Commission. We will continue to partner with the Commission on important issues like education, innovation, and economic development in Europe.
Finally, we will continue to move forward with our plans for breakthrough products and services. A lot of people are wondering what this fine means for Windows Vista and other future products. The answer is that we have worked hard to ensure that Windows Vista is consistent with the requirements of European law. We began sharing early versions of Windows Vista code with the Commission more than a year ago, and we are working to ensure that any questions they have about
I think interoperability will hurt the bottom line more than the fines, cause they are a multinational that operates all over the world and not just in EU. Full interoperability would obviously hurt sales of Windows licences, esp in the enterprise. And its just what the fine is about, that they are using their market share on the desktop to monopolize the enterprise sector too. Its not about security, which is a technicality and can be improved. Its all about revenue..
True, but they still managed to get themselves ruled an illegal monopoly ... it was the penalties phase that was largely altered by the appeals court.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Two versions of 'reasoning':
EU - company found in breach of law, company fined, company chased for the money
US - company found in breach of the law, company convicted, company asked to 'play nice' and nothing else done
I'll take the EU version thanks.
Last time I checked, someone modded + 2 Interesting could in now way be called a troll.
"Monopolists do not fix prices based on supply and demand."
Trying to change the subject? No monopolists are being discussed.
"let's leave murderers out of jail"
Get a grip. I guess it makes it easier for you to think if you call Bill Gates a murderer, however.
"Noooo, it is not the monopoly that gives them the chance...
With your changing of the subject to monopolists, I am wondering if your angry poorly-thought-out rant was intended as a reply in another news item.
"Just beacuse europeans prefer to be rich, not to have rich corporations..."
That one ranks rather low on the coherency-scale. I hope you eventually find the proper news item for your post and have better luck with it than you did here.
Where were you when the voynix came?
He gave you a quest?
"i see government trying to foster competition in the market. what do you see that i don't?"
There are already viable OS products being GIVEN AWAY that run plenty of software and are more stable.
Where were you when the voynix came?
like they do in Texas, they demand all others to pay cash anyways.
The EU's "monopoly commission" (equivalent to the FTC in the US) does have teeth, and regularly does impose fines that are larger in proportion to the company size than those imposed against Microsoft.
Most of these, however, are imposed for illegal price-fixing between different companies.
Seriously.
Do you worry where your speeding ticket goes?
Why do you care about where this goes.
It'll go the same place they always go.
would you prefer MS kept the money?
It seems to me this is really about whether governments have the ability to enforce the laws they create. Whether EU legislators truly represent the will of the people of the EU nations is debatable, but the EU is a governmental body that in theory speaks for the people it represents. Here we have a governmental body telling a corporation that it has violated the rules of doing business. The EU isn't telling Microsoft that it can't sell its products anywhere. It is sending a clear message to Microsoft that if the company does business in the EU, it needs to do so under the EU's rules.
It isn't a surprise that collectively the EU prioritizes cultural, economic, and political issues differently than the United States, so it seems absurd to me to expect that they'll change their rules just for you when you do business there. Apple can elect to stay in the EU market and deal with the ramifications of iTunes/iPod-related legislation, or it can stop doing business there. The same thing is true of Microsoft. They make billions of dollars in Europe. They can forgo making those billions, or they can stop whining that they didn't know exactly what the EU wanted, and start complying. It's obvious what the EU wanted, and it's obvious that the EU tired of Microsoft's endless legal maneuverings. Now Microsoft is seeing that the EU is serious. Massive corporations do not have unlimited power, even when they think they do.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I know. I've had some dealings with Neelie Kroes' cousin Mike Kroes Offt.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Revoke M$'s IP rights/copyright in EU as a remedy. Seems right given the issue at the heart of this. That'll get their attention... Doubt thats actually possible, but damn, it could be fun to watch....
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
True, but they still managed to get themselves ruled an illegal monopoly
That's true -- and most of their OEM contracts ("trusts") were tossed out, and all their competitors sued them for billions of dollars.
But ultimately, the courts upheld the fundemental sancitity of Windows as a product, so no justification for breakup, or fines, or special N(eutered) editions. Bush didn't do that -- it was the courts.
Oh, come on! This is what? Like 1/20th or 1/40th of what a tiny country like Sweden transfers to the EU budget ANNUALLY. Sure, this will put the budget out of the red if they are in a pinch. Suuuure.
Karma: 2.71828182846 (Mostly due to small, fun pills)
No, it is tue that the US Court of Appeals is part of the Executive Branch, but the Executive branch is the one that supports the 'prosecution' phase of the appeal.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
GNAA loser!
Its nothing strange about them at all. Politics and Money goes hand in hand:
- If one has gold one can use it to get rulings.
- If one have power one can use rulings to gain gold.
So the reason Microsoft is in trouble is that they did not spend enough money to get the ruling they wanted.
The reason Microsoft got easy off in the USA was the fact that they paid enough money to get the original ruling overthrown and changed the goverment to one more friendly to their cause by investing in politicians.
Thats how the world works.
Just saying it like it are.
You forgot to mention that money the government pockets like taxes and such instantly disappears. It just vanishes along with the wealth it represents. Basically governments are just black holes that suck in wealth never to be seen again.
350 million (or whatever the exact figure is) is a lot of money.
/.'er, it's a huge amount, and for some governmental organisation to just turn around and say "Give us 350 million" doesn't sound that different to "This is a hold up and I've got a gun".
For your average
Exactly!! All governments do is steal money!! Why do all these foolish statists not see how inherently evil that government is???
...here in Europe "libertarian" means "extreme leftist" so your philosophy doesn't have much of a stand here.
However, I'd like to put it in terms you understand: Europe is offering Microsoft a marketplace where they can sell their goods to 450 million people of at least considerable wealth, however, they have to comply to the rules that Europe has set for its marketplace or expect to pay a fine.
Now they have a real choice: 1. They can comply to the rules and sell in this marketplace, making a sizeable profit. 2. Break the contract they have with the EU by breaking the rules and pay fines which will eventually cause their profit to be sucked up, or 3. they can decide that it's not worth it, terminate/not enter the contract with the EU and don't sell there. It's completely voluntary, they can do so as they please.
There are some rules in the financiaæ world thet requires proper documentetion of allmost everything. Now MS just said to the public that they do not have the proper documentation for the product they sell... so there may just be several large financial institutions (at least in the EU) that may not use MS software due to the now officcally known lack of documentation.
There are already viable OS products being GIVEN AWAY that run plenty of software and are more stable.
Are you stupid? I've seen your rants further up, and you seem to have no idea about the issue at all. Those products you speak of are severely hampered because they can't interoperate with the entrenched quasi-monopolist, and this is what the ruling was about: MS was ordered to document their stuff so that interoperation is possible in the interest of the user. MS didn't comply and thought they can weasle out of this. They have been fined, and rightly so.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
They said that it was the most secure Windows so far; are you disputing this?
Well... I think 1.0x, 2.x, 3.0 and 3.1 (a bit unsure about 3.1.1) was quite a bit more secure than the current OS...
Just a clarification, you make it sound as if the law France passed applies to all the EU. It does not, so while Apple may pull out of France if they cannot find a legal wqorkaround (and why have we not hear more on the outcome from that law?) it does not mean they will pull out of the whole EU.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Uh, dude, the US COURT of Appeals is part of the COURT system, which is NOT part of the Executive Branch! You know, the THIRD branch of government?
Duh, go back to high school civics class...
"Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
How about hitting Micro$hit with a one billion euro a day fine until they either open all of their code to developers or go out of business? 'hopefully will be the latter'
The petitioners are asking for the details of the protocols, not the exact implementation of those protocols. Maybe their code is ancient and crufty and you could reimplement it in 10,000 lines of C instead of 150,000 if only you knew exactly how they worked. That is what they're requesting.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Hardly. Europe will brush themselves off, and switch to Linux.
MicroSoft will be unable to sell anything in Europe after that, and the US itself probably won't, either. MS will go bankrupt and Dubya will be impeached by a newly elected Democratic Congressional majority and a liberal leadership will in short order repair America's relationship, since Europeans know a ton of us Americans hate Dubya, but MicroSoft? OTB or penny stock by December. Worthless security by New Year's Day.
I for one hope MS does just that!
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
the trouble is, it won't trouble microsoft at all.
They'd spend that much opening up a new market and not blink. If that's what it costs to work in the EU, so what? Turnover matters more then losing the fine money.
Just exactly how much did the US anti-trust ruling hurt them? Not the slightest bit.
Other then this fine, which does no more then itch microsoft, they can't do anything, and microsoft knows it. Market forces are on their side, unfortunate as it is.
Umm... are you high? Or, if you are, don't you remember the commercials between the cartoons on Saturday Morning? Like, "Bill on Capitol Hill" and whatnot? Here, learn something.
It's great to learn, 'cause knowledge is power!
Great! So now all that money that Microsoft Monopolised, goes to the EU! Great! What about giving that money back to the people who were taken advantage of, instead of keeping it fund your government? I'm sure more people in the USA bought windows than any other country, so why not refund it for everyone (in the entire world.).
> ...but who is getting all this money and what are they gonna do with it?
They should give it to the Samba project for making the necessary interoperability improvements.
Or maybe give it to a cross-section of Open Source projects. After all, isn't the EU's purpose to increase competition in the market, versus Microsoft's illegally-obtained near-monopoly?
If the EU did that, then I dare say that this fine would go from being just a slap on the wrist, to something that Microsoft would really feel.
Now it all makes sense.
Not really. The court ruled that while there was no actual impropriety on the part of Judge Jackson, there was the appearance of it, and that was largely why they threw out Jackson's breakup order. At least, that's how it was explained in the mainstream media. Microsoft was ruled an illegal monopoly by the original court, and that ruling was upheld by the appeals court. The only issue was what remedies should be applied: Jackson wanted to break up the company according to antitrust law, the appeals court rescinded that order and imposed lesser sanctions, which have apparently had little effect on Microsoft's behavior. Improprieties or not, history will probably show that Jackson was right.
... just ask the antitrust folks at the DOJ. They were pretty torqued off about the whole thing, since all their good work went for naught.
I don't know about "the fundamental sanctity of Windows", whatever that means, but the reality is that Microsoft was taken to court over multiple antitrust violations, perpetrated over decades, involving multiple corporate customers and competitors, and billions of dollars. The company was convicted of those illegalities, and was then let off the hook. Say what you will, Microsoft got a free get-out-of-jail card
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The EU member states will get the money, as well they should. What they do with it is their own business. How could anyone be shocked that SOVEREIGN nations would stand up to a mere corporation?! The only shocking thing is that the MS legions have become so obsequious that they can't image NATION STATES standing up against their overlord. Snap back to reality, yo.
--
"... grandfather liked it," said Chester, averting his eyes from a lithograph titled Rush Hour at the Insemomat.
What is an Insemomant? There is no Wikipedia entry for it. It is not in the dictionary. And it only has three hits on Google (none of them on Slashdot, ironically). All three are this same quote.
Bullshit.
The facts are that Microsoft spent millions developing Active Directory, and rather than offer competing solutions, guys like Samba want to clone Active Directory and give it away for free. And they want, nay, *demand*, that Microsoft assist them in doing this. This is bullshit.
There's nothing stopping competitors from offering their own network solutions that can be installed in Windows clients and run on whatever server OS they choose. Then they could try to compete with Active Directory on mertis. But no, they want to just create a free clone of Active Directory run on some *nix server.
You guys supporting government fleecing the company that spend millions developing something so that OSS can make cheap knockoffs rather than develop potentially better solutions are misguided, to say the leasr.
That's a part of reality. Another part is that MS forged evidence in court and wasn't disciplined for it. (Remember the fake video?)
So even under the Jackson court MS was being given an insane amount of leeway.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
"They can't stand the fact that.... we will defend ourselves when attracted."
Please please please don't expand on the object of America's sexual denial.
.....Thanks EU for having some balls, which the US DoJ doesn't.....
I wonder if the issue really is the vaunted MS protocols. Are there no clever people in the EU or elsewhere who could reverse engineer these and make them available to anyone? The EU, or any government for that matter, could amend their laws such that copyrights or patents are not violated if done for the purpose of interoperability. Even if someone distilled or even outright copied the protocols for the SOLE purpose of ensuring interoperability, their laws could be changed to allow for this. France recently went after Apple and their music DRM protocol. Instead of forcing Apple to give that up, why did they not simply rescind DRM protection laws similar to our beloved DMCA? In short order someone like DVD Jon would come up with a way of stripping DRM protections and there would be no law protecting Apple's or any other DRM system.
Doing this of course would subject everybody, including their companies to the same rules. It appears that the EU is singling out the most successful American companies and punishing them because their own businesses are not managing to compete on the open market.
All theory is gray
yep, 1,2 and 3 didn't even support network by default. It was very close to "the most secure machine is the one unplugged and turned off" and I bet, we all agree this is the most secure OS
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
You know, every time Europe brings up this nonsense about more fines for Microsoft, I just want them to shut up already.
At this point, I don't trust them, I don't trust their agenda, and I don't think they actually care aboutt the consumer anymore than Microsoft does.
YMMV.
The thought hit me that in the long run, this could actually be a benefit for Microsoft.
Over and over, I keep seeing anecdotes that Microsoft hasn't provided the requested documentation because they don't have it, at least in coherent form.
Now they've been effectively slapped up back of the head and told to produce it, and make it available to everyone.
Note: "Everyone" includes their own programmers.
When the proper documentation becomes available, I'll bet a lot of in house programer's reaction will be either "So THAT'S the way -FOO- works!" or "Damn! that's a brain dead way of doing -BAR-, this way's better."
So it wouldn't suprise me, once the dust settles, to see Microsoft improve. Who knows, the next version of Windows might only be two years late.
The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
I have heard enough of their sales pitches to know that Microsoft's concept of interoperability is simpe and they grasp it quite well: "Throw out every piece of software that you currently operate that isn't made by Microsoft and exchange it for equivalent Microsoft products. After that everyting will inter-operate just fine so long as you don't stray form the yellow brick Microsoft road."
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Do you really believe that? Europe use comparatively fuel-efficient cars, lots of electrified railroads, and a lot of nuclear power. It's you who have the coal- and oil-fired power stations and the gas-guzzling cars.
The EU is petty and small.
The EU is the biggest economy in the world...
The EU wouldn't collapse.
5) MS couldn't fry their backup tapes.
4) What makes you think they all use MS? Consumers would be rocked badly, however.
3) They have paper records and the ability to switch back to it for the short term.
2) MS would be afraid of going bankrupt after losing access to the EU, and then having the US economy take a major hit as a result of MicroSoft's subsequent collapse, and then having to hire police protection from their fellow citizens with whatever monopoly money they have left to spend.
1) MicroSoft has no killswitch function! The mention of one has no doubt already caused world Governments using their software, to plan accordingly. You just know they already have firewalls set up and Windows Genuine Advantage blocked.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
This is about the EU trying to get even with America. They can't stand the fact that like Israel we will defend ourselves when attracted.
You've got to be kidding me? We in the EU are your friends, stupid. We work together in extremely many ways, and there are much better and hidden ways to hurt the american economy than through a very public fine to Microsoft.
All I want to know is this...
Who is wearing the "Executive Bra".
Er ah, maybe I *dont* want to know after all.
emt 377 emt 4
And that's just what they're waiting for with the EU. Or did you think Mr. Gates was hiding his money over in a huge non-profit for no reason? It protects his bank accounts, it makes a bunch of people grateful, and it gives him a great way to "hint" that Microsoft should be treated nicely to encourage support from the new Gates foundation.
That's how this game is played, folks.
Microsoft continues to violate even those terms with seeming impunity
What do you expect when the only punishment for violation is an additional two years of "probation"
There's words in this, I can't understand word
That's why the EU wants Microsoft to document it, silly!
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
...but their understanding is a little different to ours.
"We got away with it over there, a bit, so let's get away with it over here, too!" is probably a good summary of their US-style interoperable legal strategy being applied in the EU.
But... welcome to Europa. MS're in for a biiiig disappointment when the EU courts don't quite fall sucker to such ploys in the same way, and in fact will probably (ironic and all as this will be) soundly slap down the uppity colonists for daring to treat EU so presumptiously.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...an interoperability issue?
Shocked! Horrified! How could this possibly happen? (-:
Top dollar (Euro, Pound... whatever) says that MS don't learn from this. Playing fairly seems to be against their religion.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Since folks in Las Vegas bet on anything, I'd like to know what odds they're putting that Microsoft won't pay.
DT
Is this thing on? Hello?
If I had mod points, you would have them
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Microsft is an incorporated limit liability company. Bill has no need to "hide" his money as his money is not at risk. The whole point of incorporating is that the only assets at risk is the companies assets, NOT the investors private assets. You only risk what you invest. Your home and other non-invested assets can not be touched by creditors.
Anarchists never rule
True. Now if only you'd stop selling nuclear technologies to Iran, and help the UN Security Council actually condemn the US for the warn in Iraq to help embarass us into cleaning up the mess, I'd be prepared to come over and buy you a beer.
Actually, he is at risk. He can lose the stock, or see its value plummet grossly, and lose his generous salary and stock benefits, both of which are quite frightening in their generosity and help fund his other investments.
Lets think about this for a moment, what is really going to happen?
How many times have we seen this kind of game from MS? Oh sure, they may actually have to pay EUR280 mil this time, but will that really hurt them, come on, the company still has BILLIONS in cash reserves.
M$ will just try and appeal or negociate to pay as little as they can, then pull it out of their cash fund or something and NOTHING WILL CHANGE.
Until the really big players start telling MS to go to hell and M$ starts getting hit HARD (billion $ fines anyone?) they will just continue as before.
I'm not going to hold my breath.
I haven't paid for a Microsoft operating system since I bought a PC with Windows 3.1 installed. The only way they'll ever see a dime from me is if I have to replace my Microsoft Natural keyboard.
the ignorant american poster who says america defends itself when "attracted."
darn george bush, he knows he's not supposed to post on slashdot...
ps - i'm american, too, and i'm fed up attacking people when we aren't *attracted* based on the ignorant community (opposite of intelligence community). how many people were fired by bush for screwing the pooch on iraq?
Come again?
The facts are that Microsoft spent millions developing Active Directory, and rather than offer competing solutions, guys like Samba want to clone Active Directory and give it away for free. And they want, nay, *demand*, that Microsoft assist them in doing this. This is bullshit.
What? What you say? Millions developing Active Directory? The Greatest Turd of All High-Polished Turds? I'm speechless. No I'm not. Let's see, you take a MS Jet Engine derivitive for a store (not the first MS product to do so, and I beleive that Microsoft can afford the source for REALLY CHEAP), slap two connectors onto it (one LDAP at a non-standard port to make the standards folks shut up and be happy, one proprietary to keep them guessing), glom Kerberos source onto it for authentication (which I might point out has been available for DECADES for the princely sum of ... free), turn around and head-fuck said Kerberos source (PAC ticket, anyone?), and then sprinkle tons of chickenshit in whatever DNS server is unfortuantely afflicted with storing the DC information (thereby enraging whoever runs the DNS that is afflicted with said malaise).
Oh yes, millions.
I'm laughing my ass off, in case you didn't notice.
There's nothing stopping competitors from offering their own network solutions that can be installed in Windows clients and run on whatever server OS they choose. Then they could try to compete with Active Directory on mertis. But no, they want to just create a free clone of Active Directory run on some *nix server.
You MUST be a shill. This is traditional MS double-speak, double-think, "meme insertion", and misdirection. Let's disect it, one segment at a time, shall we?
The facts are that Microsoft spent millions developing Active Directory,
How many of those millions were spent waiting for a stupid compile cycle vs. actually doing something new? Given that Kerberos has been around for some time and LDAP is a well-known, well-published protocol with source documentation, I find this statement of Dubious value.
and rather than offer competing solutions,
Competitors are people you compete with for business; but when you are in your department and you are implementing some process in software, you're hardly thinking in terms of business competition. You must have a Seige Mentality to be constantly thinking in this manner.
guys like Samba want to clone Active Directory and give it away for free.
Interesting that Samba, a software package, is suddenly personified. I'm sure you're talking about one (or maybe more?) of the Samba developers. Indeed, you seem to think that giving something for free is an issue. It's almost as if Free Software was your Worst Fear Personified, even if it's irrational.
And they want, nay, *demand*, that Microsoft assist them in doing this.
Who is the "They" in this case? The Samba team or the EU? The Samba team hardly can demand this, but the EU can. Given that they are a government entity, their demands (just or unjust as it may seem) are hardly Arrogance, although I personally feel that this little snippet of words is really a Projection of Flaws onto Another.
This is bullshit.
This is Chair Throwing.
There's nothing stopping competitors from offering their own network solutions
Oh, what fun I could have with this. The crux of the whole arguement from the EU is that no-one can make a competing solution because no-one has the documentation on how to write their own "replacement" software package, unless they are a Business. In effect, this means only businesses can write "replacement" software. Funny how that locks out volunteer efforts such as F/OSS. This Covering the Truth with a Falsity can be leveraged in further arguements by repeating it over and over, so that other readers ca
Are there no clever people in the EU or elsewhere who could reverse engineer these and make them available to anyone?
Cracking DRM or other hard crypto is not a matter of being "clever". The premise of interoperability goes far beyond MS's current file formats and protocols, which are ciphers only by virtue of being largely undocumented.
I think the parent poster was referring more to Gates' $30 billion+ that currently exists as Microsoft stock - whose value most definitely is tied to Microsoft assets.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Isn't the point that the closed protocols don't allow an open market to exist?
Microsoft holds a monopoly, so they've got certain responsibilities - namely to use that monopoly power within the law.
Re:Legal circles?
(Score:4, Funny)
by chromatic (9471) Alter Relationship on Sunday July 16, @05:05PM (#15729290)
(http://wgz.org/chromatic/)
If their appeal is successful, they'll get a refund.
I hope it's in the form of a coupon for 15% off the upgrade to the next version of the fine.
And
I must say that I find it difficult to imagine that a company like Microsoft does not understand the principles of how to document protocols in order to achieve interoperability.
Anyone who has worked on a very large system knows that understanding the principles of how to document protocols is fine, but if the software you are to document is large and overly complex then doing it, well, is another thing.
Go do some research about campaign contributions. Look how much money MS gave, before, during and after the antitrust stuff. Screw the politics...R and D are just as bad. 99% of the problems we face can be easily figured out by following the money.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
It's Senator Stevens (R-AK).
There. Try to get THAT visual out of your head.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
The EU is the biggest economy in the world...
So what? It's not like they can defend it, you know.
....Isn't the point that the closed protocols don't allow an open market to exist?......
Protocols are not closed by nature, only by current law protecting them as proprietary or patented information. The Lexmark printer case showed this very clearly. Change the laws to unprotect certain kinds of information for purposes of interoperability. By definition, DRM is not encryption, since the purpose of encryption is to prevent an outside unauthorized party from making sense of the information. In DRM you are trying to prevent the authorized recipient from passing on the cleartext information to an unauthorized party. This is by its very nature impossible to do without laws like the DMCA. So in all cases, the laws need to be changed to make it impossible for software or other IP monopolies, such as Microsoft or Apple iTunes/iPod to exist.
All theory is gray
The caving in of the Justice department did not start until after Bill Gates had a private one on one golf game with Bill Clinton. I don't like Bush either but don't rewrite history.
"They said that it was the most secure Windows so far; are you disputing this?"
.... YES.
.... "secure". I know of not one Network vulnerability in either of these two products, nor of vulnerabilities of virii and spyware, that directed attacks at that level.
.... "best" or "most" or .... whatever, they had better provide the definition of what they mean.
In a single word
Windows 1.0 and 2.0 were very secure by every measure that the current and more recent versions are measured, and defined as being
Never mind that neither of these had networking in them, but that is besides the point. When people make claims such as
That, and if you decide to define "secure" as meaning the front door has triple deadbolts, a chain lock, and the screen doors, but fail to mention that the windows (pun intended) are left wide open, so that any common catburgler can crawl right through, then that definition of security does not meet mine, by any measure.
Security is a chain, of which is measured by the weakest link. "Most secure" means squat when the two chains have the same weak link in them.
So, all one has to do, is ask M$ by what measure do they mean "most secure Windows ever". Somehow I doubt that they will actually define what they mean by that statement, which then relegates it to Marketing Speak, i.e soundbites void of any real meaning.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I'm impressed with the respect I see for the law around here - and I'm sure that those of you here who are so intent on seeing MS brought down - not because you despise MS, not because you're jealous of it's success and its competitors inability to crack its market (because of MS, no failings on their part), but because MS broke laws considered by some to be controversial are also willing to turn in your friends who illegally download music and warz - in fact, I'm sure all of you are compling lists of those people as we speak... Such honest and law abiding people - I'm willing to bet not one of you has any illegally copied software, copyrighted songs or videos !
Microsoft has Offices in Europe. They have subsidiraries in Europe. They have warehouses in Europe.
Anything they own in Europe is up for graps.
Martin
Instead of forcing Apple to give that up, why did they not simply rescind DRM protection laws similar to our beloved DMCA?
Because they like not being at the receiving end of WTO sanctions. TRIPS has ensured that the DMCA is everawhere. If you don't implement DMCA-like legislation you receive trade sanctions, period.
Definitely one of the more evil treaties, and one that pretty much ensures that stuff like the DMCA is here to stay.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
(Okay, actually it translates as "God be with us", but it's sort of similar.)
Don't know where you are from but in Europe; atleast the Benelux (and probably a lot of other countries) [and that's not because I was sitting there but because my ex-partner was prison-keeper] are no "dropping-the-soap-stories" or prison-rape-a-go-go-days. Very simple. Next to that they could never put people working under demand of their superiors for such a long time in jail to be ass-pounded anyways; so why should they be afraid even?
If I get the order from my boss; which seems not illegal and I proceed to follow that order, it's nothing more than a responsibility of the one who gave the order and not the ones who executed it. This is not justice for murder or rape we are talking about but a political and commercial game (which the ball lies in Microsoft's camp for now).
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Seriously. I mean, look at how easilly Ken Lay got off! Oh, wait...
All political institutions are corrupt. Of course, it's called "lobbyism". It's just that MS hasn't opened their wallet wide enough... And, as I said, now it may be too late for the comission to backpedal.
Flamebait huh? Well, all Americans without any idea about EU politics I assume.
They wouldn't forgo the fine for some small changes settlement / bribe now. Trust me; the EU comission knows the smell of money quite well.
I said that some random bribes are too late now. I never said it would fix the budget. Did I?
Is he wearing his Hulk tie, too?
Of course. Two ships X and Y are both fundmentally unseaworthy. I dispute that Y is more seaworthy than X.
True ... but because of that leeway (really, Judge Jackson giving them plenty of rope with which to hang themselves) there wasn't any way for the appeals court to argue that the conviction was invalid. I mean, Microsoft had every chance to prove its innocence, up to and including perjury, and still failed. Now, I suspect that much of that failure was Microsoft management's inability to take the Department of Justice seriously. I doubt they'll make that same mistake again.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
It would look like that if it wasn't for the fact that MS could have avoided the punishment altogether if they had done what they where asked to. They are simply being punished for breaking the law and making no attempt the remedy the damage there illegal actions have caused just like any EU company in there situation would be
I wonder if the issue really is the vaunted MS protocols. Are there no clever people in the EU or elsewhere who could reverse engineer these and make them available to anyone? The EU, or any government for that matter, could amend their laws such that copyrights or patents are not violated if done for the purpose of interoperability.
Except that would violate all number of international treaties and if the EU
In addition people like you would only whine that It appears that the EU is singling out the most successful American companies and punishing them because their own businesses are not managing to compete on the open market if they took the approach you proposed.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
Consider this: if Microsoft does not comply, and raises prices, the EU could simply forbid the sale of ANY computer with Windows pre-installed, for, say, a period of 5 years or so. This would effectively leave the customer decide between paying $150 for Windows in addition to a $300 PC, and using a free OS, or installing a pirated copy of Windows. Effectively, the EU does nothing radical (like seizing Microsoft copyrights), it actively and officially encourages switching to Linux, and leaves its citizens to widely pirate Windows, thus harming Microsoft financially. It could take years, but it would be a steady migration path, and a situation much more healthy than currently.
It would remove one pillar of Microsoft dominance: the mass-distribution of windows with new computers, while promoting alternatives, and reducing profits for Microsoft at the same time.
...Except that would violate all number of international treaties and if the EU.....
Is it not ironic that the stupid laws and treaties big businesses bought from politicians everywhere are now biting them in the ass. Laws such as DMCA and treaties like that, are purely anti-customer and pro-business. If nobody protected by law these harebrained DRM schemes and other constructs to protect old business models, then everything WOULD inter-operate, because clever technical people would not have to worry about armies of lawyers being on their tails because they could make sure that different technologies DO work together. All IP protections that are used to thwart competition should be abolished. It is not technology, but laws that need to change to reflect the brave new digital world. Bits, by their very nature WANT to proliferate and be copied forever.
All theory is gray
Let's try this again. During any case, there is a prosecution side and a defense side. The prosecution side of this case IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. The prosecution is involved in presenting it's case during any process, even appeals. As such, the 'regime change' in 2000 might have made the prosecution present a less vigourous case in the appeals process. Of course the appeals court is in the judicial branch, but as you can see the executive branch has some sway in how the case is presented.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Oh, whoops. I just reread what I originally wrote. My bad. Still, read what I meant, which is a previous reply your post.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story