'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. "

Comments

Re:"There's words in this, I can't understand word

[ScrewMaster]

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.

Re:"There's words in this, I can't understand word

[Tim C]

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.

The Microsoft Protocol

[Mutatis Mutandis]

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.

Cash or gift vouchers?

[Tango42]

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?

I got an alternative.....

[Em Ellel]

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

Sure they do...

[Savage-Rabbit]

"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."

The principles? They cannot even grasp the concept!

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."