EU Official Labels Microsoft's Behavior Unacceptable

InfoWorldMike writes "EU commissioner Neelie Kroes has lashed out at Microsoft in comments to European parliamentarians Thursday, saying it is 'unacceptable' that the company continues to gain market share using tactics that were outlawed in the Commission's 2004 antitrust ruling against the software vendor. 'Three years later Microsoft still hasn't complied with the main demand imposed by the European antitrust ruling: that the company share interoperability information inside Windows at a reasonable price to allow rival makers of workgroup servers to build products that work properly with PCs running Windows.'"

Comments

Yes...

[drinkypoo]

...and until someone actually gets serious and imposes a penalty against them that will actually induce them to change their behavior, like preventing them from selling their products until they comply, this is what's going to continue to happen.

Re:Yes...

[drinkypoo]

That would be good, but at least the EU is currently fining the pants off them, which is a start. No company can continually take half a billion dollar fines year after year without seeing shareholders getting pretty angry.

They can if it enables them to make two billion dollars (or whatever) that they otherwise would not be able to make. Microsoft's entire business model depends on vendor lock-in, and keeping these formats private and secret is part of that.

If you could flawlessly migrate all of your Microsoft Office documents to OO.o formats today, then huge numbers of people would leave microsoft office tomorrow; they'd be leaving Windows shortly thereafter. The vast majority of people working with computers use office, a web browser, and an email client, and very little else. It would be cheaper in every way to put them on Linux with OO.o; TCO is probably approximately the same, though somewhat higher for Windows due to cleaning up malware (which in an organization with any significant number of computers requires quite a bit of time) but is vastly cheaper up-front. Priced Vista+Office lately?

Re:Yes...

[morleron]

One of the big problems here is the sheer length of time it takes to get anything done legally. How many times does MS get to appeal the EU's decision? According the article a ruling on the appeal of the 2004 decision won't be made until near the end of the year. Each time this happens MS has yet more months and years in which to continue its illegal practices and gain marketshare. Given enough layers of appeals MS will win this fight by default as no one will be left to compete with them in the "workgroup server" space. The situation reminds me of the death row prisoner who dragged his appeals on so long he died a natural death. Whatever became of the use of injunctions prohibiting certain practices until the law is decided? Why is it MS seems to get a free pass in that regard? Inquiring minds want to know. ;)

Just my $.02,
Ron

Re:Yes...

[drinkypoo]

$135 for Office, when bundled with a new system. Vista is effectively free from the large OEMs, since the price is the same whether it has Windows or Linux. For businesses ordering through OEMs, the price to stay on Windows isn't that much (and is a lot less hassle than rebuilding the network to use Linux).

The issue is that Vista forces you to buy a new system in most cases, and if you don't, you're spending as much money on software licensing as if you were buying a new machine!

The latest Linux-distribution-of-your-choice will run on hardware a couple generations old very very nicely, while if you have the latest, greatest hardware, it will let you make use of it.

If you're looking at say $600 per machine for new software (if you have new machines) or $800+ per machine to replace the machine so you can run vista, well, you've made my point for me really.

Sigh.

[Khaed]

Why is it that only Europe is standing up to them?

Re:Sigh.

[ms1234]

They havent figured out how to buy 25+ memberstates at once yet

Re:Sigh.

[jalet]

Culturally ???

You are trying to be funny, aren't you ?

Re:Sigh.

[stox]

Don't have successful tech companies???

I guess I must be hallucinating when I look at the Siemens DSL modem I have, and then the Alcatel DSL equipment that fills the remote terminal down the street. I'll also have to ignore the Nokia cell phone. There is a lot of tech that comes out of Europe, and much of it is better than the American tech it is competing with.

Re:Sigh.

[matelmaster]

ever heard of SAP? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAP_AG

Re:Sigh.

[Savage-Rabbit]

Care to back any of that up? He's a political zealot, he doesn't have to....

Re:Sigh.

[jalet]

Sorry, in the part of the world I live in we usually don't use "consuming" and "culture" in the same sentence.

Re:Sigh.

[guruevi]

I don't see them fining Red Hat, Google, Yahoo, IBM or any other company that is both highly successful and behaves according to the law. Only breakers of those laws and regulations get punished.

And although you claim that Europe ignored the tech industry for decades, they still have a larger broadband penetration rate, they have a superior electricity and telecommunications network and a lot of smart people and ideas come from a part of Europe (ok, a lot of them migrate to the US, including me but that has more to do with the European tax rates, which are killing to high salaried workers and a brain drain from US and Asian companies), look at Linus Torvalds, DVD Jon, The Pirate Bay, a lot of alternative energy 'inventions'...

Re:Sigh.

[Anonymous Coward]

American food?
Isn't that mostly recipes that originated from other countries, but deep fried?

Re:Sigh.

[ciggieposeur]

I'll respond only because I've got 10 minutes to waste...

European countries use Windows for the same reason Americans do: MS rode the wave of personal computing and then began setting up illegal business deals to catapult itself into a monopoly position. They use Windows for the same reason you use Canadian, Venezualan, and OPEC oil: you have to. OTOH, they are taking the lead in moving away from Windows unlike many of their American counterparts.

Second, the Internet was NOT paid for by the USA. The current protocols were developed with DoD research dollars, but they were informed by experimental networks in Britian and elsewhere. The actual network hardware was purchased by them for their own networks, and for the most part that was all manufactured in Asia.

And BTW I am an American enrolled at a prominent Texas university in a top-tier engineering graduate program that has 90% international students.

Re:Sigh.

[LaughingCoder]

Sorry to ruin your point with facts, but Microsoft donates to both parties. And as it happens, since 2002, MS has actually given quite a bit more to the Democrats than it has to the Republicans: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D00 0000115&Name=Microsoft+Corp

Re:Sigh.

[jeevesbond]

Europe virtually ignored the tech industry for decades

Yes, Tim Berners-Lee completely ignored technology when inventing the Web (whilst working at CERN) preferring to use homing pigeons instead of a packet-switching network.

Just because the EC is taking a known monopolist to task--and going the right way about it--doesn't mean there is some sort of European conspiracy going on. Microsoft have got a massive percentage (a bit out of date, can't seem to find anything current) of desktop market share and are using that to unfairly hamper competition. They use bundling and their API to stop people from developing for other platforms. They put the brakes on IE for as long as possible because they realised their API was (and still is) threatened by web based applications.

Unfortunately the US government failed to prosecute Microsoft fully so the EC are being forced to do it. It's sad but quite simple.

Re:Sigh.

[ijakings]

((I will imagine I will get modded down for flaimbait for this... but im going ahead anyway as its a traditional British joke.))

Indeed, the French provide a valuable service. They let us know when is the best time to surrender..... This would be great, except for they ALWAYS tell us to surrender.

Re:Sigh.

[stephanruby]

Because they don't have any successful tech companies of their own to boss around?

That's arguable. Europe funded DARPA, in other words, it's as responsible for the Internet as much as the United States is.

Europe virtually ignored the tech industry for decades...

On the contrary, I don't know what happened in the other European countries, but in France for instance -- they spent huge amounts of money on research, education, and IT infrastructure. In 1986 for example, it was already achieving a 95% penetration rate of households by giving away free network computers (the Minitel) to anyone who asked. In 1987, ecommerce was already very developed in France, you could already buy pretty much anything on it, and the government was at the forefront of this.

Sadly, this is probably why France still has a dismal showing on the internet. It spent so much money on its national infrastructure, that it kept a stranglehold on its telecommunication monopoly -- so it could recoup its losses. Also, all the innovations that happened were done by (or through) the French government -- which later turned out to be a bad idea. The Minitel network was controlled and regulated by one company, the French telecom. It was a smart network. All its innovations were made at the center of its network, or with the explicit permission of that company. Most people at the nodes were forbidden to mess with it. So in that sense, the French government didn't understand the power of the dumb network and prevented the innovation of the masses.

Re:Sigh.

[NoOneInParticular]

The day that Real Networks has a big lobby in the EU is the day that monkeys will be flying out of my ass. No American company has a more significant lobby in the EU than Microsoft, save for IBM. Microsoft has been breaching all boundaries that exist for companies, and Real Networks is simply a reason to get these pirates under control again.

Re:Sigh.

[paving-slab]

I can see why you're posting as a coward.

Source code is not the "ultimate documentation", it is pretty useless as documentation. Imagine if the Windows help system popped up the relevant source code whenever you had a problem, do you think that would be an improvement?

They have defined what they want, they want Microsofts protocols documented in a way that makes it possible for other companies to talk to them. This is what Microsoft refuses to do.

Re:Sigh.

[hxnwix]

Clinton followed SOP, namely, replacing many prosecutors as he entered office.

Bush followed SOP, namely, replacing many prosecutors as he entered office. Later, years later, he fired prosecutors for investigating corrupt Republicans and for refusing to investigate obviously fabricated allegations against Democrats. The difference is not hard to comprehend.

Nice try. Play again?

Re:Sigh.

[dajak]

The maximum fines for antitrust law violations have recently been increased very considerably by European Parliament. The next fine will probably be an order of magnitude bigger than the last two, and will hurt even Microsoft.

So what?

[Gerzel]

Looking through the article I don't really see the EU taking any more action against MS that will actually make them comply. This seems to just be a single guy saying MS is abusing its power, a standard course of action.

Re:So what?

[tsa]

Neelie Kroea is a woman. Or should I say, and iron lady?

Market Share

[coolmoose25]

Microsoft goes from a 30-40% share of the market to 60-75% share, and the EU concludes that this is completely due to its "unfair" practices? And yet, Europeans continue to purchase more and more MS products... This just harkens back to the ruling the EU made that MS had to remove Internet Explorer because it was anti-competitive to give away software... boggles the mind. Let the marketplace decide... MS gets lazy with IE, and the next thing you know the hottest browser on the market is Firefox. Why can't Sun do the same thing with servers on its own without government interference???

Re:Market Share

[Anonymous Coward]

> Let the marketplace decide...

Firstly you need a competitive market for that to work, that's why we have competition laws. Secondly, this idea that free markets are some democratizing force is total bullshit.

HTH.

Re:Market Share

[tsa]

The Americans also ruled that MS used unfair practices, and they also kept buying their stuff. So what are you implying?

Re:Market Share

[hxnwix]

Microsoft is breaking the law.
Microsoft is breaking the law.
Microsoft is breaking the law.
Microsoft is breaking the law.
Microsoft is breaking the law.

Why is this so hard for certain people to understand?

Re:Market Share

[westlake]

The Americans also ruled that MS used unfair practices, and they also kept buying their stuff. So what are you implying?

That trying to legislate a market for Microsoft's competitors is a waste of time?

Re:Market Share

[geekoid]

MS starting giving away their browser to compete for Netscapes, whose browser was NOT FREE.
It became free as an attempt to compete with MS's illegal monopoly practices.

Both browsers were a piece of crap then, but the is irrelevant to the discussion.

Using you monopoly power to destroy a competitor is illegal. The reason it is illegal is that it gives no chance of competition for the consumer to take advantage of. The fact that the consumer has no real option is why the consumer keeps buying the product. Hell, a consumer may not know that a company is abusing it's onopoly and that's why there is no, or very little competition. in other words, they don't know enough to not buy the product.

Re:Market Share

[nine-times]

Why can't Sun do the same thing with servers on its own without government interference???

...well I'm not sure I agree with this argument. In the larger context of what happened, it seems to me you're argument goes something like:

Microsoft tried to do bad things before, and the government interfered a little because people were predicting Microsoft's bad behavior would have many negative ramifications. Microsoft was still allowed to continue with their bad behavior, and the predicted negative consequences manifested. Luckily there were other forces that mitigated the negative impact and it wasn't a total disaster, and we're now recovering, though problems persist. Microsoft's bad behavior wasn't a total disaster in this one case, why shouldn't we allow Microsoft to commit similar acts?

It just doesn't quite make sense to me. IE's total dominance of the browser market was a bad thing that could have and should have been prevented. It's not over. Firefox still doesn't have a huge market share, and it's still a fight to get Microsoft to adhere to web standards.

But to answer your question more specifically, there's a reason why Sun can't really do "the same thing with servers": HTML is an open standard that other people could build browsers against. Microsoft's SMB/CIFS/Active Directory/Exchange are not open standards, and people are forced to reverse-engineer ways to interface with these things. And let's not forget that Microsoft can change these things on a whim, push updates out, and screw up anyone trying to reverse engineer things.

Re:Market Share

[Reality Master 101]

MS starting giving away their browser to compete for Netscapes, whose browser was NOT FREE.

I think you are misremembering (not a criticism, thinks were fast and furious back then). Netscape would allow you to give them money if you really wanted to, but it was also a free download, and was also bundled everywhere. Netscape was definitely using the "give away the product and make up the difference in volume" Internet model.

Both browsers were a piece of crap then, but the is irrelevant to the discussion.

No, Netscape really was a buggy piece of crap. Remember, Netscape had an enormous lead over IE... in the 90s of percent. Everyone switched because IE was so much better, especially when it came to speed.

Using you monopoly power to destroy a competitor is illegal.

And yet, Opera does OK in this IE-dominated world. Netscape died because their product sucked, and they were also trying to take advantage of a non-natural market. It was like trying to sell TCP/IP stacks on top of windows. Those companies used to exist, by the way. They don't anymore, and no one cries for them because Microsoft started "bundling" TCP/IP as part of the operating system. Same with the browser -- A browser is a natural utility of an operating system these days.

Re:Market Share

[arevos]

I think the thing that is hard to understand is that the law in this case is almost perversely refusing to say what it is that they *actually* want Microsoft to do, and continually just telling Microsoft: "That's not good enough". The EU has never refused to say what they want Microsoft to do. They've been crystal clear from the first. Allow me to quote from the court orders:

The first type of abusive conduct by Microsoft, described at recitals 546 to 791 to the Decision, consists in Microsoft's refusal to provide its competitors with 'interoperability information' and to allow its use for the purpose of developing and distributing products competing with Microsoft's own products on the work group server operating system market from October 1998 until the date of the Decision (Article 2(a) of the Decision). For the purpose of the Decision, 'interoperability information' means 'the complete and accurate specifications for all the Protocols implemented in Windows Work Group Server Operating Systems and ... used by Windows Work Group Servers to deliver file and print services and group and user administration services, including the Windows Domain Controller services, Active Directory services and Group Policy services, to Windows Work Group Networks' (Article 1(1) of the Decision). 'Protocols' are defined as 'a set of rules of interconnection and interaction between various instances of Windows Work Group Server Operating Systems and Windows Client PC Operating Systems running on different computers in a Windows Work Group Network' (Article 1(2) of the Decision). Microsoft has yet to provide anything close to complete and accurate specifications. This isn't just the opinion of EU lawyers not understanding technical documentation, it's the opinion of prominent developers, like Andrew Tridgell, the creator of the Samba project.

What's more, Microsoft has had 2 years to document it's protocols, and it claims it has 300 engineers are working "day and night" on the problem, but despite that, little documentation has been forthcoming, and what there has been, has been smothered under a layer of restrictive licenses and NDAs.

It seems to me that a company as large as Microsoft should have at least some idea of how its network protocols work, and if not, is capable of finding out. You'd have thought that a company that prides itself on technical innovation and "Developers developers developers" would know how to write technical documentation. So either Microsoft is entirely incompetent, or it's flaunting the law. Whilst the former is tempting to believe, Microsoft didn't get where it is today by being staffed by morons, and so one has to conclude that they're deliberately disobeying the law. Hence the fine. It's that simple.

Re:Market Share

[Tom]

Why is this so hard for certain people to understand? Because for some people, especially on the low end of the evolutionary scale, the only way they can survive with them being down there and others being up there is to assume a world-view that those on top are there because they are right. MS is on top right now, so they must be right.

The Joke must be made

[paladinwannabe2]

Help competitors build products that work properly with PCs running Windows? Even Microsoft can't do that!

Not taking sides...

[GrayCalx]

But I would like to see what would happen if Microsoft just said "We're not changing our practices, so we won't sell our products in Europe." Would computer users revolt against the EU? Would they be angry at MS instead? Meh, it'll never happen but sometimes just to watch the debacle of it all, I wish it would.

Re:Not taking sides...

[lawpoop]

The problem is that European regulators can't introduce competition into the marketplace by throwing out MS. There is nobody who can step up and replace them. All of the software that runs on Windows depends on Windows, and there is no competitor that runs windows software without a hitch. If the EU said, "OK Microsoft, no more sales in Europe for you!" then all of the European computer users would hate the EU for taking away their software, and there would have no replacement.

In order for siome company to create a competing OS that can actually run Windows software well enough, MS would have to release their specs. That's why the EU is playing softball -- ultimately they need MS' co-operation for there to even *be* a competitor. If MS leaves or is thrown out of the market, the users are SOL.

Re:Not taking sides...

[WaZiX]

You do realize Europe is consists of over half a billion people right? Computers have become ordinary products, leaving such a market would be corporate suicide... Now one of the Main goals of the EU is to defend the customer, all the EU are doing is what they were appointed to do. Such antitrust lawsuits are common places, be it a US company or not. Believe it or not it's not the task of the EU to ruin Microsoft, their task is to defend competition amongst companies inside the European market. Hell this would benefit many American companies as well and that's a good thing. The whole point is to allow customers to have the best solution for the best price, where that solution comes from is of absolute no importance.

Re:Not taking sides...

[LinuxDon]

Quote: "But I would like to see what would happen if Microsoft just said "We're not changing our practices, so we won't sell our products in Europe." Would computer users revolt against the EU? Would they be angry at MS instead?"

What would happen is that MS copyrights would be invalidated, life would just continue and everyone would start porting their apps to another operating system. You'd be surprised how fast drop-in solutions would drop from the sky in notime. Two years later, most of the migration would have been completed. It's just like when MS revoked support for Windows NT, which didn't mean people would stop using it immediately but the transition progressed over time. The only loser in the picture would be MS themselves.

BTW, it's a known fact that the European legal system is slow but accurate, I even believe they are acting pretty fast in this case. Believe me that MS won't be getting away with this easily, fines will get higher and higher. Also, ignoring the rulings will upset the commission and will make them much harsher.

It works like that with everything here: First time you break the law, punishment will be quite soft. Next time on the other hand it will be a lot harder. And eventually they'll lock you up for life.

They fact that Neelie actually uses the term 'unacceptable' says a lot, she wouldn't have said that if she didn't have a VERY hard case.
To me it looks like MS is using their American tactics at the wrong continent: This will get very sour for them.

Re:Not taking sides...

[Tom]

But I would like to see what would happen if Microsoft just said "We're not changing our practices, so we won't sell our products in Europe." Immediate recall of the entire board of directors by MS shareholders.

You US trolls still don't get it that the EU is the largest common market, bigger than the US market, do you? Walking away from a market that size is a suicide move for a company that relies on monopoly and lock-in for survival.

Re:Not taking sides...

[Tom]

If the EU said, "OK Microsoft, no more sales in Europe for you!" Don't be stupid. The EU is a government. It doesn't tell you what to do. It tells you what not to do and if you still do it, they'll take away your cookies. Half a billion at a time when you're the size of MS.

And believe it or not, if it actually were game over for MS in the EU, all that precious windos-only software would be ported to OSX, Linux, etc. in record time. The EU market is huge, larger than the US market. Any company producing software would make sure it's available in that market, windos or no windos.

The Rule of Law?

[WillAffleckUW]

I mean, who do the EU think they are, forcing an Ireland-based company like Microsoft to comply with EU laws!

Next thing you know they'll fine them - again - for beaucoup Euros ...

Impossible?

[jawahar]

I think it is impossible to comply unless MS opens source code to share.

Re:Sigh. or how do you measure success

[WillAffleckUW]

Because they don't have any successful tech companies of their own to boss around?

Hmmm. I'll just ignore all the medical genetics, biochemistry, and biotech labs running Mandriva and SuSe then, shall I?

OK if I take back those HIV vaccines from the world and the genome sequences that Cambridge did, too? And you don't need those heart medications for your cloned beef ...

Im gonna go ecstatic at this rate !

[unity100]

first, "EU Weighs Copyright Law" in benefit of end users,

then "RIAA Caught in Tough Legal Situation",

after that "Judge Strikes Down COPA, 1998 Online Porn Law"

then "RIAA Balks At Complying With Document Order" and judge is not happy with it

then the story about nebraska university wanting reparations from riaa for wasting their time,

after that, nbc embraces internet revolution in "NBC, News Corp Join to Create YouTube Clone"

then as of now, "EU Official Labels Microsoft's Behavior Unacceptable"

if things and stories in slashdot goes like that im gonna quit sex and just read slashdot.

Re:Im gonna go ecstatic at this rate !

[DrugCheese]

if things and stories in slashdot goes like that im gonna quit sex and just read slashdot.

sex AND slashdot?

you make funny

Re:I can't believe I am saying this...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Europe is trying to force its socialist business practices on the the free world.

Where is this free world and what do you call it when the US uses the WTO to dictate trade policy for the rest of the world?

Microsoft are free to stop breaking the law anytime they please.

I have to laugh

[WindBourne]

Bill has correctly figured it out that it is better to cheat,steal, and lie, pay a hefty fine later and OWN the market than it is to play fair. The longer that a gov. takes to play these games with MS is only to MS's advantage. If EU really wanted to stop this, they would tell MS if you have 1 month and then we charge you 5 x all of the EU sales/month each month. Only when it is not in Bill Gates best advantage will he comply.

Since it has been 3 years and MS has not complied, it is obvious to me that EU will not really be cracking down.

I may not like BG but you have to admire him. He knows how to run circles around govs.

Re:I have to laugh

[WindBourne]

Assume that you charge them JUST or below the amount that MS makes in the EU sales. Then MS has a strong incentive to continue with the sale. Why? because it is slowly draining their competitors. Once MS owns the market, then they can comply (or do a USA thing and buy the politician). OTH, if you charge them 5 to 10 x the EU sales, they have a strong incentive to become lawful. In addition, even if you charge MS 10 the EU sales it would still be less than what MS loses on their hardware systems.

Re:I have to laugh

[cyber-vandal]

The problem is that them being "lawful" means, among other things, dumping the media player from Windows, which hurts the users of the OS (I prefer to have a standard media player in Windows, and I don't want to download it additionally. I prefer my apps to rely on the OS having video display capabilities built-in versus having to pack a full media player with each of my media apps for ex.).

How does it hurt the user of the OS since the PC builder will just put one on before they sell it? The idea is that if WMP is already on there it acts as a disincentive to install any other media player (since that's extra work). I'm not arguing for or against the remedy I just get tired of reading this fallacy on here.

Doesn't matter

[Thaelon]

The only way to "beat" Microsoft is to come out with something better. No amount of fines will really matter as long as they still hold the dominant market share.

The reason is that people creating software for computers have the greatest number of opportunities if they make them windows compatible. And since making something cross-platform is a bitch, it's much easier to get 90% of the market by doing windows alone. And so that's what people and companies will do.

So we can either do one of two things
1) Force people to develop cross platform software and hardware (yeah right)
2) Create an operating system so much better that the majority adopts it (extremely unlikely, but better than "yeah right")

The only other thing I can think of is FORCE companies like Dell, HP, Toshiba, Sony, IBM, Lenovo, Gateway etc to stop forcing Windows down our throats on computers we buy from them and sell the bare machine at a REDUCED price. I'm sure Microsoft is strong-arming some of them to some degree, but if we just flat out make it illegal to force-preload then they have little choice.

the only penalty that will work is block 'em.

[swschrad]

impound microsoft products at the port of entry, and no sales at all in the EU.

nothing else will get their attention.

old joke revisited... steve jobs dies and is waiting at the pearly gates. long line. suddenly, with a rush of clouds and chorus of angelic voices, a chair goes skidding across the horizon, and A Power rushes by and through the gates without slowing down.

"hey, what's the big idea?" says jobs.

"Oh, that's God," says St. Peter. "Every once in a while, he thinks he's steve ballmer of microsoft."

Mod Parent Up

[TheGreatHegemon]

I've had the same notion in my mind a long time, but the parent has said it more succinctly than I ever could have.
Europe seems to be viciously attacking most American(Capitalist) software companies - Google, Microsoft, and Apple have all three had suits brought against them. Every last one has lost, too. After a point, I wonder if they're really preventing monopolistic practices are just preventing competition altogether.

Interesting

[LilWolf]

It's interesting how every time there's a news story of EU slapping Microsoft for breaking EU laws, the slashdotters suddenly come out siding with Microsoft.

Never mind that they were bashing Microsoft just one news story below and complaining how monopolistic and evil Microsoft is :)

Re:Interesting

[King_TJ]

Mmm... yes. Just as interesting as the idea of "Slashdotters" all having a common mindset.

Re:Interesting

[jb.hl.com]

Devils advocate: At least people have a choice to buy Microsoft products or not. They don't have the choice to not be subject to the EU or its laws. They won't even have the first choice if the EU stops Microsoft selling its products in Europe.

Entropy & the Borg

[treval]

Isn't it about time we updated the /. icon for Microsoft? Bill Gates has aged a *lot* since the current one was made. I suggest using something like OLD MAN as a base.

Steve Balmer is in Denmark end of April...

[JackMeyhoff]

.. feel free to throw some rotton eggs at him. One thing though, when he is in Europe he doesnt dance about like a monkey spreading his BO of death, he actually is calm and business like. While he is here he will be "leveraging" his demands to various government officials and using the businesses he has aquired there as a bargining chip like he has done over software patents. Do as I want or I close shop and you have to pay unemployment, and lose the tax, and so on. Thats how he does business. He also will have the press in tow. He really does love his tours of self importance.

Disclaimer: I am not a European

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe is trying to force its socialist business practices on the the free world.

If MS wants to sell to Europe, then they have to deal with European laws. Unless you think that a corporation should be above the law.

Why does Motorola use an OS designed in Finland?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

By your argument, you'd be suprised that US phone makers use Linux (Finnish) or Symbian(British) OSs in cell phones. Why do people in the US buy German cars, you'd think they'd be able to make there own premium brand cars.

The EU only wants to regulate the way US credit card companies deal with EU citizens.

Welcome to the global community. All the EU is saying is that a fair set of rules need to be put in place so that people don't get abused. What EU proposes against Microsoft would help US companies too, it is just that the US goverment lacks the balls to do this.

Two reasons: gutless and clueless

[Dion]

The US government is a completely gutless pet of the plutocracy that really rules the country, so unless there is dramatic change of regime nothing will happen there.

The rest of the world, except the EU (it seems) doesn't really care because they are too primitive to to realize that being dependent on a single US company is a problem.

The funny thing is that the EU has a very simple solution to the MS problem; simply fine MS 10000 EUR / day / undocumented protocol identified and use the resulting money hire 10-20 hackers pr. protocol to reverse engineer it and publish the docs.

Anyone should be allowed to submit protocols, if MS has implemented both a server and a client then it needs to be documented.

Ideally this principle should extend to other areas as well, there are tons of secret protocols that do nothing more than serve as a weapon of vendor lockin.

Re:Two reasons: gutless and clueless

[Mordaximus]

The rest of the world, except the EU (it seems) doesn't really care because they are too primitive to to realize that being dependent on a single US company is a problem.

Either primitive doesn't mean what you think it means, the EU is smaller than you think it is, or your world view is smaller than a typical American. You think Australia is primitive? Japan? Canada?

Re:USA/EU corporate style

[Gorath99]

1The notion that *only* USA companies would be sued for that is totally bogus and plainly untrue. It may be that USA-ones *seem* to happen more because:

1)It gets a higher profile when one is sued, because they make more fuss about it (together with the 'look, it's the EU against USA' attitude)

2)USA corporations are more prone to anti-competitive behaviour (maybe due to the inherent strong corporatism in the USA where one easily buys politicians)

3)EU-corporations are as bad as USA ones, only they can cover it up better


You're very close with number 1, but the biggest reasons (IMHO) are:

1) US news only reports when the EU fines a US company.
2) Slashdot only reports when the EU fines an IT company and most of them are from the US.

For those who truly feel that the EU is specifically after US companies: do some searching on European news outlets on companies fined by the EU for anti-competitive behavior. Many, if not most of them, are from the EU itself. For instance, in the past year Siemens (German) has been fined 397 million euros, Akzo Nobel (Dutch) has been fined 25.2 million euros, Solvay (Belgian) 167 million euros, Total (French) 78.6 million euros, Edison (Italian) 58.1 million euros.

And those are just from the first 2 cases I found on a quick search. Hardly a month goes by that I don't read about another big case.

Sources (in Dutch):
http://www.nu.nl/news/955922/32/rss/EU-boete_drukt _winst_Siemens.html
http://www.nu.nl/news/725210/32/rss/Akzo_krijgt_ka rtelboete_van_EU.html

Re:I'm far from anti-European but this guy is a bo

[KokorHekkus]

You're just forgetting one small detail: the person decding if Microsoft complied with interoperabilty demands was picked from a shortlist that Microsoft themselves provided. In essence Microsoft to pick the own jury with no intervention and yet they failed. I belive that speaks volumes.

Re:Why does Motorola use an OS designed in Finland

[TheCoelacanth]

Linux isn't Finnish. Probably more of the kernel is created in America than in Finland. Linus Torvalds didn't write even close to all of Linux. Any large open source project probably has developers from multiple countries.

EU's Behavior Unnacceptable

[dynamo]

Where is the punishment already? Stop whining and get an injunction to ban all microsoft product imports and sales until they comply with the rulings of the court.