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. "
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?
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 $357M. The net effect is that the European consumers pay the fine rather than MS itself.
The Department of Justice did at one point (I mean, they did win the antitrust case against Microsoft you know) but when the regime change occurred their priority system got readjusted. At least, that's how it appeared to me at the time.
Oh, obviously. It's like Bush hung out the shingle "Open for Business with Business" when the greatly watered down justice was finally meted out, and astoundingly Microsoft continues to violate even those terms with seeming impunity.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Spendid bit of ad hominem flame baiting/trolling there. To be clear. Are you saying that the EU Commission is being "corrupt" in some way here? I'm not a fan of much of the Commission's work and its inability to get it's budget through audit for (how many?) years is ludicrous. In this case though, it appears ti have been transparent and straightforward.
MSFT paid the earlier fine on time (which they are appealing now) so I suspect they will pay this one as well but appeal the decision. So they could run the legal game but they will not profit directly from it and I suspect there is a very finite types of appeals they can file.
About the unclear obligations I think that Microsoft has one really major hurdle to overcome: their non-compliance wasn't decided by EU appointees but the person was choses from a shortlist provided by Microsoft.
I do not agree that paying up the money is a big deal for M$. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Nope, that she isn't. She only takes the word from the person appointed to decide if Microsoft is compliant or not.
And, oh, that person was selected from a shortlist provided by Microsoft.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Second, any government power is illegitimate. The EU harms both its citizens and Microsoft by standing in between.
Yes, Just as US harmed its citizens by standing between Enron and all the people they swindled.... Damned that government power, Lets all have a minute of silence for fallen freedom fighter Ken Lay!!!
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
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?
Actually, there was very little direction in the demands the EU made. Microsoft provided a mountain of documentation, but the EU had unspoken, but very specific, ideas about formatting and details that weren't given to Microsoft until April of this year, which forced them to pull hundreds of engineers off their projects to go back and change things. I know the /. crowd doesn't cheer very hard for Bill and his microserfs, but in this particular case it's the other side who isn't playing fair. Maybe they're just bitter that no one wants the Windows Media free edition. /shrug
0 6/07-12EUFinesPR.mspx
"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."
Given that Neelie Kroes is a career politician and business woman, not an engineer who has ever written technical documentation for third parties, I'm not sure her opinion counts for a lot in this matter (besides, you know, the hundreds of millions of dollars). Commentary by Professor Barrett, who is currently guiding the documentation efforts would be much more relevant.
Microsoft's July 12 statement: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/jul
.....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