Microsoft Loses EU Anti-Trust Appeal

Kugrian writes "Microsoft has lost its appeal against a record 497m euro (£343m; $690m) fine imposed by the European Commission in a long-running competition dispute. The European Court of First Instance upheld the ruling that Microsoft had abused its dominant market position."

Comments

This isn't justice: too little, too late

[jafoc]

While the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) which fought for this long and hard can justifiedly rejoice (FSFE press release), overall, I'm still very unhappy about the state of antitrust "justice".

The biggest problem is that it took 10 years to get to this point, and Microsoft still hasn't disclosed the specs for how to make interoperable products. We're fortunate that the Free Software way of doing things is rebost enough to survive in spite of this, but profit-oriented companies simply can't hold out long enough for this kind of legal system to really help.

What we need is clear legal rules that vendors with dominant market positions must adhere to genuinely open standards for all protocols and document formats, and of course we also need a genuinely non-corrupt standardization organization Microsoft doesn't sell us something as an "open standard" which really isn't.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Bob Gelumph]

The problem with this idea for policy is defining the point at which a company becomes dominant and what happens if they get there with closed proprietary systems that are not anti-competitive in nature when they are created. I agree that companies should have a responsibility to society and should desist from anti-competitive practices... I just don't think it is always so clear-cut.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[gravos]

Good points all around.

Though I do wonder what level of fine it would take for Microsoft to really change it's way of doing things instead of just making whatever paltry change the regulatory body required (like selling a version of Windows that probably no one is going to buy without IE bundled in).

I wonder because even after some pretty hefty fines in the past they seem to have changed direction very little as a company.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[jkrise]

The problem with this idea for policy is defining the point at which a company becomes dominant and what happens if they get there with closed proprietary systems that are not anti-competitive in nature when they are created...

There is no problem even in that case. There are close to a billion computers right now; and Microsoft software runs on well over 80% of them all. So what if they weren't a monopoly 20 years ago? The protocols in use RIGHT NOW must be open for public access.

By any yardstick, it is very clear that Microsoft IS A MONOPLY in the massive worlwide PC market.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[spectre_be]

Finally, justice one could say.
But the big winner is still microsoft of course, no way the fine undoes the years taking advantage.
I guess the software / IT market is still growing up slowly / steadily & things like this were bound to happen.
Let's hope it never has to come to that again.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[suv4x4]

The biggest problem is that it took 10 years to get to this point, and Microsoft still hasn't disclosed the specs for how to make interoperable products.

Maybe it won't matter a lot in another 10. Microsoft has abandoned its own back compat with Vista in many places and the businesses are denying Vista transition.

In fact I've been in contact and read/heard plenty of opinions of private users, small and big businesses, government employees and they all don't want anything to do with Vista (which is increasingly hard given many vendors do NOT offer non-Vista machines, forcing businesses to purchase standalone XP licenses or use second hand hardware).

More amusing are the comparisons I've heard about how fast Vista is: "slow as a dying dog", "as a overweight grandma on a treadmill", "turtle on vicodin", "turtle dipped in mud climbing uphills"...

Microsoft's own software (Office 2003, VS 2005, etc.) isn't compatible with their own OS right now.

Microsoft's a mess, and honestly, I do believe the EU lawsuit is a fiasco and not what we needed. What good is it they fined them nearly a billion. Will this help us somehow.

I honestly would rather prefer they sued them for delivering unstable, incompatible, and a resource hog of an OS, and maybe even sue the hardware vendors for not consistently offering XP as an option across the range (wee see some half hearted attempts here and there, such as Dell offering XP to businesses, and not to consumers).

This is a really pressing problem for millions of people worldwide. The vague problem of them including Media Player in Windows isn't that big, turns out (seeing that most sites use Flash / MP4 QuickTime for video anyway).

I mean, they compete with their own Media Player, by introducing Silverlight. If it stiffled competition so much, what sense does it make competing with your own player. Apparently EU sees things oversimplified.

Furthermore, MS would rather

pay

than lose their monopoly, and as a result, they will now have less money to put into proper development and thus indirectly stifle Microsoft's ability to put proper investment on bringing timely SP-s to Vista and XP (they got cash, but not so much cash that 700 million go unnoticed in their budget).

All in all, whether you think it's too little too late, or like me, you think it's the wrong "victory" to begin with, nothing to cheer for in this decision of the EU court. Just more crap that will hit the fan.

Re: This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Dolda2000]

What good is it they fined them nearly a billion. Will this help us somehow. (To begin with, let me tell you about a friend of mine: Mr. Question Mark. He's happy to help whenever you have a sentence phrased like a question.)

However, maybe it is good that they fined them nearly a billion. I, too, doubt that that alone will make much of a dent in Microsoft's budget, but maybe it sets a precedent, and other nations may start doing the same. South Korea, for instance, springs to mind. One billion dollar fine might not make much, but if a large enough number other nations start fining Microsoft for anti-trust violations, they might have to do something real about it. Even if these nations are just out for the money, they still need some legal pretext in order to act, so if Microsoft will wish to avoid it, they might actually have to comply with the law or retract from business in those nations.

I know I might just be overly optimistic, but one must keep one's hopes up, right?

Either way, I'm much more optimistic about the "sharing of server protocols" part of the judgment. It would be great being able to use Samba as an AD controller.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[MtViewGuy]

Another problem is that Microsoft makes so much money per year that 497 million could easily be paid off in one lump-sum payment. It's akin to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell fining the New England Patriots US$750,000 for that recent illegal videotaping scandal--a drop in the bucket in terms of impact.

Re: This isn't justice: too little, too late

[suv4x4]

Either way, I'm much more optimistic about the "sharing of server protocols" part of the judgment. It would be great being able to use Samba as an AD controller.

I didn't know that "it would be great" represents a valid reason to sue anyone. It'd be great to have free ice-cream, so do I sue the ice-cream manufacturers?

The matter of fact is, Microsoft's tactics to create greater lock-in effect have started playing against themselves. Open standards gain popularity that make their own incompatible solution irrelevant. The irony.

To begin with, let me tell you about a friend of mine: Mr. Question Mark [penny-arcade.com]. He's happy to help whenever you have a sentence phrased like a question.

Let me tell you about a friend of mine: Mr. Don't Patronize Me B*tch.

Those were rhetorical questions and I chose to use full stop, as it better represented my intended tone, never mind what I could have used. I hope you manage to sustain your being without spilling internal organs all over your room, while reading how I dare fight Mr. Question Mark.

Oh, and no hard feelings...

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[pieterh]

Before we all rejoice, consider that (a) Microsoft can, and will appeal, delaying any verdict by another three years (b) the fines amount to about one month of net profits, (c) Microsoft is building a new franchise strategy based on software patents that makes this ruling irrelevant. I predict MSFT's share price will wobble and then climb as this sinks in.

It's very simple - you pay about USD$8 to distribute a print server, or you are violating MS's patents and liable to be sued.

The largest monopolist in history has faced down the largest economy in history, and won. It was the delay that mattered; during those six years, software patents have changed the rules. Patents trump anti-trust law (a cartel deal that would result in 20 years jail for the execs that signed it becomes legal when a single patent is added to the mix). Microsoft is using this to trump whatever the EU does.

We are very close to seeing the FOSS world split into two, one half owned by Microsoft and acting as a franchisee, and the other half operating in increasing 'illegality'. The only real competition to Microsoft's global monopoly in one of the most vital of industries is the FOSS economy, and it's the patent threat that the EU should have been looking at, not the out-of-date issue of documentation and bundling.

Please consider joining the global fight against software patents - join the FFII, start a national chapter, and get involved. Only the community is able to defend itself against Microsoft, our politicians and courts are totally out-manoevered.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[SL Baur]

and maybe even sue the hardware vendors for not consistently offering XP as an option across the range As if offering Microsoft Windows XP across the board blunts the monopoly. In freer countries, one can walk into a random computer store and buy notebook computers without any Microsoft at all (and I have the store datasheets in hand to prove it), but not in San Jose, California. There's a reason for that beyond simple supply and demand economics.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[everphilski]

$500,000 of the fine was levied directly to Belicheck - which is 1/10 his yearly income. To Microsoft that is less than 1/52 their yearly income, as they pulled down (IIRC) $13BN last quarter. It's nothing, really, other than a slap on the wrist.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Sczi]

More amusing are the comparisons I've heard about how fast Vista is: "slow as a dying dog", "as a overweight grandma on a treadmill", "turtle on vicodin", "turtle dipped in mud climbing uphills"... Microsoft's own software (Office 2003, VS 2005, etc.) isn't compatible with their own OS right now.

OMFG, I just can't let this stand. I don't know if you know this or not, but you're full of crap. I almost hope you're being malicious and not just ignorant. I'm running Vista Business X64 on an original pentium d, 3.0, with 2gigs of pc3200 ddr, and a $40 video card. As a test, I just tried to beat this pc to death by multitasking the following: excel 2003, excel 2007, word 2003, word 2007, access 2003, access 2007, publisher 2003, publisher 2007, visual studio 2003, visual studio 2005, windows media player 11 (playing an mp3 with visualization running, coldfusion studio, firefox, ie7, opera, photoshop 7, thunderbird, and last but not least, Taskman.exe. Keep in mind these are all 32bit apps running on x64, so I'm taking an even bigger performance hit than usual.

Now, before I slap you down for spouting FUD, would you care to wager a guess as to my overall system usage and responsiveness during multitasking? Based on your statements above, I should not even be able to submit this post right? Hell, I should be experiencing an 8 second delay by now from when I press a key to when I see it appear in the text box. Would you guess that each app was as responsive as when I only had one or two open? Maybe you'd guess that it was starting to chunk just a tad but was still usable? Maybe you think I got a blue screen and had to reboot to post this? An honest guess, please.. preferably an educated guess

I don't expect anyone to fall to their knees and kiss Vista's feet, but for the love of God, give credit where credit is due, otherwise it's like the boy who cried wolf, and when something serious finally comes to light, it will be drowned out in a sea of "OMG, Vista is teh suxorz, lol". Karma be damned, you fud spreaders are about to start hearing from me.

VISTA == PRETTY DECENT
OS non-religious, ftw.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Lonewolf666]

Microsoft's a mess, and honestly, I do believe the EU lawsuit is a fiasco and not what we needed. What good is it they fined them nearly a billion. Will this help us somehow.

I honestly would rather prefer they sued them for delivering unstable, incompatible, and a resource hog of an OS, and maybe even sue the hardware vendors for not consistently offering XP as an option across the range (wee see some half hearted attempts here and there, such as Dell offering XP to businesses, and not to consumers).

Offering a lousy product is not illegal. So Microsoft has nothing to fear from courts about that. But maybe from the market. If they actually discontinue sales of XP in early 2008 as announced, I guess we will finally see a significant number of people moving off Windows ;-)

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[imr]

By any yardstick, it is very clear that Microsoft IS A MONOPLY in the massive worlwide PC market.
It is also clear that they maintain their monopoly by abusive practices and that the US government doesn't do anything to fix this. See the outcome of the microsoft US trial.
So it's now clear that microsoft is used as a leverage by the us government and other governments have to step in and protect themselves. Which is happening.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[suv4x4]

As if offering Microsoft Windows XP across the board blunts the monopoly. In freer countries, one can walk into a random computer store and buy notebook computers without any Microsoft at all (and I have the store datasheets in hand to prove it), but not in San Jose, California. There's a reason for that beyond simple supply and demand economics.

There is no damn monopoly. There's OSX, there's Linux, DELL and Lenovo offer it preinstalled even. And you can buy Mac machine with OSX.

Don't be naive. The whole monopoly crap is back in the mid nineties. Microsoft no longer has monopoly. There are plenty of good choices around. And exactly because of this, as I told you, many people in US I know converted to Mac this year.

I'm talking about pressing issues here, that we feel not abstractly and indirectly, but quite painfully directly: Vista is crap, and we want the ability to order our machines with XP.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[suv4x4]

As a test, I just tried to beat this pc to death by multitasking the following: excel 2003, excel 2007, word 2003, word 2007, access 2003, access 2007, publisher 2003, publisher 2007, visual studio 2003, visual studio 2005, windows media player 11 (playing an mp3 with visualization running, coldfusion studio, firefox, ie7, opera, photoshop 7, thunderbird, and last but not least, Taskman.exe. Keep in mind these are all 32bit apps running on x64, so I'm taking an even bigger performance hit than usual.

You forgot to add Notepad, Calculator, and Paint. Do you even have any idea what you're talking about. Your post is coming off pretty silly with this "multitasking test" if you ask me.

What I'm speaking about is personal experience, and the experience of many other people who's job is to care about those things, but hell, if you can run few copies of Access and not get "death by multitasking" (?) then I must be Microsoft hater spreading FUD.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Jeek Elemental]

Whatd be nice is if part of the fine goes to developing free software, then it might sting abit.
Set up a fund that deals out bounties on development goals.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Tom]

Though I do wonder what level of fine it would take for Microsoft to really change it's way of doing things 50% of their cash, with a promise that you take the other half if they don't shape up by the deadline.

Unfortunately, you can't do that anymore. Liberals may not win any elections, but they sure won one part of the "small, powerless government" agenda, and it ain't the "small" one. There's very little a government can do nowadays about large corporations. The problem, as others have pointed out, is that the justice system just takes too damn long. If a corporation can afford the fine, it can afford to simply wait out, because by the time the judgement comes down, it'll be mostly meaningless.

So fines don't cut it, unless you go to extremes like in my first sentence.

You need something equivalent to what we consider totally normal if the criminal is an individual: Lock him up during the trial, so he can't kill/rape/rob someone else in the meantime.

If MS were in danger of being shut down until the case is closed, I'm pretty sure they would be much more enthusiastic of following what's essentially their probation conditions.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[suv4x4]

Offering a lousy product is not illegal. So Microsoft has nothing to fear from courts about that. But maybe from the market. If they actually discontinue sales of XP in early 2008 as announced, I guess we will finally see a significant number of people moving off Windows ;-)

Well, I know: and this is my plea really. What's illegal doesn't cause problems for us, and what's legal (offering shoddy product and cutting off our ability to purchase hardware with the previous version) causes problems.

If only the legal system was more adaptive to cries of the people out there.

But, I'll trust you on the market mechanism. The only realistic choice for many seeking new hardware will be Mac, since it runs the commercial software they need (office, photoshop etc.).

Casual consumers may make some good use out of Ubuntu+Firefox, as shipped by Dell :P

I hope you're right not because I want people using 20 different OS-es, but because Microsoft might actually get their act together. When they do great software, they're unmatched in terms of industry support, ease of use, and accessibility.

It's just right now they've f**ked up bad enough that the cons outweigh the pros of using Windows... (this may sound odd on Slashdot).

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[mrchaotica]

No, what we need is a punishment with teeth. Even half a billion euros, for Microsoft, is apparently cheaper than stopping their anticompetitive bullshit. It's obviously not enough of a deterrent.

Now, imagine instead that the penalty was being barred from doing business in the EU and having all of their copyrights revoked so that Windows (and every other piece of MS software) became Public Domain. Would that be enough to make MS open its specs? I think that maybe, just maybe, it would!

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[walt-sjc]

There is no damn monopoly.

The EU and US courts say you are wrong. Sorry. The legal definition (which is the only relevant one in this discussion) is not quite the same as the classical dictionary version you hold on to. From a legal standpoint you do NOT need 100% of the market to be a monopoly.

we want the ability to order our machines with XP.

You have that now. You can order XP based machines from every major vendor.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Sique]

Software Patents are still not valid in Europe, even though the EPA has handed out 30.000 of them already. They are deaf stone right now. So no. Microsoft can do no business as a patent holding company in Europe.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[pieterh]

You are wrong. Software patents are valid in most European countries, depending on how the claims are phrased. The UK is almost alone in rejecting 'pure' software patents. National courts are more skeptical than the EPA but Microsoft is working hard on a plan together with the EPA to remove patent litigation from these national courts and bring it to a central court that would be much mopre friendly to software patents.

Remember that Microsoft is aiming for 5-8 years in the future when it will finally have to pull out its heavy weapons. It is calculating and hoping that it will have a big portfolio of legal, enforceable software patents in Europe by then.

In the meantime many firms regularly go to court to enforce software patents, and win. Microsoft can easily, trivially, bankrupt any team or company simply by forcing them to start legal action.

So even if a patent is not finally upheld, it is a very powerful monopolistic tool. The only safe escape for FOSS is a regulated ban on software patents that invalidates all the EPA's (illegally granted) software patents.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[walt-sjc]

Unless MS is stripped of it's ability to enforce affected patents used in those APIs via court order...

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[suv4x4]

You have that now. You can order XP based machines from every major vendor.

Show me the link where I can order XP based machine from DELL as end user (not business). It shows only Vista variations (four of 'em). The situation is the same with other vendors.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Sczi]

You forgot to add Notepad, Calculator, and Paint. Do you even have any idea what you're talking about.

Well, I'm something of a computer expert, so yes, I think I have an idea what I'm talking about. I never claimed I wrote a new prime95, I just spent 3 minutes shooting down some fud. I think it was 3 minutes well spent.

Your post is coming off pretty silly with this "multitasking test" if you ask me.

Are you kidding me? You spread fud saying office 03 and studio 05 are incompatible with vista, so I do you one better by not only running both but by multitasking the living hell out of it, and I'm silly? Now, don't get me wrong. I *am* silly, but it has nothing to do with multitasking.

What I'm speaking about is personal experience

No, actually I don't think you are. I'm the one speaking from personal experience.
VISTA == PRETTY DECENT

and the experience of many other people who's job is to care about those things

Like who? People who have a vested interest in seeing microsoft fail? Performance junkies who live and die by 3 frames per second? Enterprise IT managers who don't want to switch because XP is good enough? Pirates and anarchists wanting to buck the establishment? These are all valid opinions (except the first), but take it with a grain of context.

but hell, if you can run few copies of Access and not get "death by multitasking" (?) then I must be Microsoft hater spreading FUD.

By saying that vista is slow as a turtle on vicodin and that it won't run some important software, you are spreading FUD. Whether you hate ms or not, you (and I mean "you plural" here) do everyone a disservice by spreading falsehoods, whether intentional or not.

Vista isn't going to cure cancer, teach you to program, or print money for you, but it is a competent os that basically does what os's do. It's stable, reliable, and shockingly compatible (I'm not shocked, but some people are). It is definitely on the upper end of GOOD on the overall goodness scale.

MS and Windows do so many things worthy of criticism, just stick with the facts.
OS non-religious, FTW

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[walt-sjc]

Oh gee, that's really hard. I went to Dell's web site and entered "windows xp" into search.

First link was this one:
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/winxp_inspn?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&redirect=1

This is in the "You are here: USA > Home & Home Office" section with a big-assed banner that says: The choice is yours. Windows Vista or Microsoft Windows XP, you decide."

Did you even TRY or did you just decide to troll today?

That said, as a HOME user, you can buy dell business models too, without being a business. You have TONS of choices for Dell XP machines. Same deal with every other major vendor.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Battle_Ratt]

To force change it would be pretty simple actually. Just invalidate and release all patents held by the company, and release all code and content from copyright into the public domain. Allow open reverse engineering, and invalidate all licenses, EULA's, and OEM agreements by all purchasers and distributors of their products.

The simple fact is that the government permits company's to hold both patents and copyrights, and all license and contract agreements are sanctioned by the government.

Pull the legal rug out from under them by removing those permissions they use to hold everyone hostage. That would force them to change.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Tiger4]

Show me the link where I can order XP based machine from DELL as end user (not business).

It isn't a link. You have to call the 800 number and tell them. They will push sell the Vista. You tell them XP or else. You get it.

Stupid business practice, but they aren't complete morons. They don't want people to walk away with money ready to spend. Maybe the Vista push is part of the MS contract they signed. Which by the way, they can get away with when they have monopolistic market clout.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[MightyMartian]

Forcing interoperability might very well be a bit of a screw-up for Microsoft, though how exactly a European ruling translates back into North America is something I don't quite get yet. Even if European Samba developers get access to Microsoft's filesharing protocols, with the DoJ apparently having a love-in with Microsoft at the moment, does the ruling mean anything?

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[MightyMartian]

A monopoly isn't about choices, it's about market position. Microsoft is every bit the monopoly it was in the 1990s. Windows still sits on the overwhelming majority of computers out there.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[VitaminB52]

It is also clear that they maintain their monopoly by abusive practices and that the US government doesn't do anything to fix this.

There are at least three reasons why USA politicians aren't running to fix the Microsoft monopoly problem:

• Next year is an election year in the USA. And Microsoft is a very large contributor for fundraising politicians, so a politician wouldn't want to alienate Microsoft.
• The USA trade deficit. Microsoft has a net profit margin on both Windows and Office of about 85 percent - all Windows and Office sales outside the USA bring money to the USA without equally large expenses (in terms of used manpower / resources) inside the USA. Without the Microsoft monopoly, and the way Microsoft 'utilises' this monopoly, the USA trade deficit would be larger still.
• <conspiracy> Microsoft Update uses the Windows License Key to check if Windows is 'genuine'. And if the License Key belongs to an entity that is of some special interest to, let say, the NSA, then the Windows Update server could sent a 'customized' patch to that computer. </conspiracy>

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[pieterh]

"by court order" from who? The decision announced today actually states that Microsoft must license its patents for a reasonable fee. There is no precedent except in cases of national emergency to impose mandatory licensing, and absolutely no precedent for a model that would allow FOSS competitors.

Even the USA, in WWI, had to push aircraft patent holders to create a patent pool, it could not impose mandatory licensing. This option is exceptionally rare, and the EU Commission exceptionally weak. It is exceedingly far-fetched to imagine some random court is going to make such an order.

The very mention of mandatory licensing (for free, to competitors like Samba) will unite the entire patent industry in a fervor of hate against those proposing it. No EU Commission I know is going to risk that.

Re: This isn't justice: too little, too late

[fbjon]

Rhetorical questions are questions too, don't discriminate against them. They'll be sad!

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Anonymous Coward]

I think his objection is that having a couple of open, sleeping processes isn't a particularly useful test. My 1GHz PowerBook has about 60 sleeping processes right now. Load the applications so they all require at least some CPU, and watch the scheduler fail.

Re: This isn't justice: too little, too late

[genner]

Will they? Will they really?

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberals may not win any elections, but they sure won one part of the "small, powerless government" agenda, and it ain't the "small" one.

Whoa dude, your knee-jerk is out of control! Liberals as advocates of "small, powerless government"? On what planet???

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[walt-sjc]

A case can be made (and has been) than the ONLY "market viable" competitive alternative IS software like Samba, where the only "reasonable fee" is ZERO.

Your aircraft example is totally different. There was not a monopoly on airplanes, and no manufacturer that had NEAR the market share that MS has on desktop operating systems, and no anti-trust situation.

The very mention of mandatory licensing (for free, to competitors like Samba) will unite the entire patent industry in a fervor of hate against those proposing it.

Very much like the entire computing industry was against Linux because it contained SCO IP. Oh wait... (yeah I know it's a different situation. Kinda like airplane examples...)

This is a very specific case dealing with a company that is in a unique position, which requires innovative and strong remedies. All options should be on the table. It can be made quite clear that this is not the norm (mandatory licensing for free) but an exception. I don't believe the fervor you fear would come to pass.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Elektroschock]

That is right: competition policy alone won't solve it but interoperability enforcement is the other side of the debate.

I am speaking of an amendment that got almost 92% support in the software patents debate

"Wherever the use of a patented technique is necessary in order to ensure interoperability between two different data processing systems, in the sense that no equally efficient and equally effective alternative non-patented means of achieving such interoperability between them is available, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement, nor is the development, testing, making, offering for sale or licence, or importation of programs making such use of a patented technique to be considered a patent infringement."

and I am speaking of the EU IDABC and its European Interoperability Framework. Sure, they are working on its obnstruction but it looks like Microsoft can't do it anymore. Everybody is fed up with them. And another important field is standard policy.

Don't forget: anyone can start an antitrust complaint e.g. against EULA provisions. Here is the complaint form.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[sammy baby]

Liberals may not win any elections, but they sure won one part of the "small, powerless government" agenda, and it ain't the "small" one.

Um... at the risk of hijacking a perfectly good discussion of antitrust into a "liberals vs conservatives" argument, the sentence I quoted gave me pause. Are you suggesting that a traditionally liberal argument is for powerless government? Because I don't know anyone of any political stripe who perceives "small, powerless government" as a "liberal" value.

I mean, unless you think Grover Norquist is a liberal.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[darkonc]

Liberals may not win any elections, but they sure won one part of the "small, powerless government" agenda, and it ain't the "small" one. You are, I think confuse liberals with libertarians. The fight to 'get governments out of the way of large megacorps like Microsoft which would happily chew up even medium-sized competitors and spit their not-so-juicy leftovers out on the sidewalk' is one area where libertarians and conservatives seem to be in alliance. It's also one area where liberals don't want to see things go.

These people will often site Adam Smith as the grandfather of Laissez-faire capitalism and the principle of 'free market'. If you take a closer look at his work, however, it becomes apparent that he saw "big business" as being just as corruptive on the economy as "big government" -- some people would even say that he saw them as roughly equivalent. In both cases you have people at a far-away headquarters ('capital') making decisions about what's going to happen in my quarter of the world -- and often with no real care for what happens to the 'little people' like me.

I mean, from the point of view of the average bloke, how is 'big business' really any better than 'big government'?

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Fizzl]

I'm running Vista righ now with 1G mem and core2 duo@1.8Ghz.
I have Azureus with one download, firefox, mediaplayer with a xivd+ogg video/audio and 2 putty's open. This Mofo sticks and jams all the time when I switch window. God forbid I drop everything wit Win+D; that might cause a 10 second uexplainable jam of the whole UI.
I spent two weeks trying to get Reason 3 and Sonar 6 play along. 3DsMax wasn't easy either. Now, if I plug&unplug my firewire audio interface I get a bluescreen. (That's because of 3rd party drivers, but still).

To get my favourite apps work at all, I pretty much had to disable UAC. That beast not only hindered my work all the time, it also caused even worse UI jams. Oh yeah, also had to disable all the new UI goodies which initially were only positive thing about this OS.

I now have a copy of XP on different partition to do anything serious. I still boot to Vista for web surfing and other useless tasks just to force my self to observe the improvement when/if MS fixes these problems.

Also, just a warning. If you buy a HP laptop, "downgrade" to XP and try to get drivers, they pretty much give you a page telling you to fuck off and install Vista back. Even thou I was perfectly cabable of gathering all the necessary XP drivers from their site with half a day of cross-checking between different laptop hardware configuration.

But what the hell. I will start using the Vista when all my hardware and software work fine on it. Untill then, I keep on checking. I'm not hating this thing out of spite. I just want it to work in a consistent manner and not getting on my way. And that's not bitching about UAC. I think the idea is great. the implementation is just terrible. It's just yet another pop-up everyone will ignore and click haphazardly because it is getting on the way.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[geekinaseat]

In school we were taught that a monopoly is defined by one company holding anywhere upwards of 25% of the market not 100%, if this definition is true then I don't see how you can argue that simply because (relatively very small) competitors exist, that microsoft is not a monopoly.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[thepartyanimal]

What are you smoking? Do you even know what a monopoly is? Please Google the definition. How can Microsoft be a monopoly when there are several other options you can choose from? the key phrase being "you can choose". The people have chosen Microsoft Windows. The people are free to choose any other company. The people continue to choose Microsoft Windows. The are industries that make money from producing calculator software. Do they now get to sue? What about text editor software companies? I believe Windows comes with notepad. Is that now an impending lawsuit? All this judgement has shown is the obtuseness of justice officials in separating preconceived notions when adjudicating matter of large business. The European court system is a complete fraud. This would never have happened in an American court room. These are the same people who allow lawsuits against churches for not allowing gay organizations to use their property. Any other company would not have these nonsensical restrictions placed on them. A version of Windows without media player? Are they serious? If not media player, then why anything else? Seriously. It doesn't make any sense. How about suing HP for packaging Intel processors in their computers. Or maybe sue Motorola for using their own components in cell phones. Absolutely absurd. Judgments like these stifle technological growth. Alternative, and sometimes better, solutions do not exist when government legislates "competition". Using your rabbit-hole reasoning Ford was a monopoly. They never were, but lets just use your illogic and say that they were. Look at them now. Just imagine what phone companies would do if they were able to litigate and win in this fashion. None of us would have the speedy fiber optic connections to the internet right from our home. wait a minute... Companies don't produce new (and better) products just for the hell of it.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[RightSaidFred99]

And that's because...people still choose to buy Microsoft products despite the angry hand-wrenching of nerds everywhere who swear that there are better choices, some of which are free. You can say it's about market position all you want, I don't care about that and neither do most right thinking people. It's about logic and rational thinking. If there are high quality free alternatives in any market, it is impossible to have a monopoly in said market.

The fact is that no matter what the dirty huddled masses of pathetic geeky dweebs think, people choose to use Microsoft OS's because they don't care. They don't obsess over the OS, they care about the apps. The apps are on Windows. Ergo, Windows will always be the overwhelmingly dominant OS. This is a simple fact, and you're all just tilting at windmills.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[legirons]

It was interesting to hear Lord Sainsbury in the UK (while talking to a load of OSS folks about patents) tell everyone (paraphrased) that Microsoft would never dare pull anticompetitive stunts in the UK because the competition commission was so powerful and so scary.

Obviously the assembled audience gave him the "are you taking the piss?" style of rolling around laughing, which wasn't the most polite thing to do, but he seemed to take it fairly well...

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[MightyMartian]

The Windows lock-in is primarily in two areas; entertainment and office apps. Game makers pretty much concentrate on Windows, and the office apps are really the most nefarious of Microsoft's monopoloy abuses. Some of this is a kind of catch-22. Still, Microsoft has been caught abusing their monopoly for over fifteen years, doing things that are illegal and intended to further their stranglehold. Europe certainly has the right to assure that all companies doing business in their jurisdiction behave themselves, and it's not like Microsoft has made many times the amount of money in Europe that this fine represents.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[tsa]

If I had mod points I would mod you troll.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Chandon Seldon]

There is no damn monopoly. There's OSX, there's Linux, DELL and Lenovo offer it preinstalled even. And you can buy Mac machine with OSX.

Economically, the problem with a monopoly isn't simply that there's only one vendor. It's that there exists a single vendor who has overwhelming market power. Microsoft has such market power and has repeatedly abused it (which is illegal). That sort of behavior is economically damaging, and the sheer volume of money that it produces for the monopolist is socially damaging (they'll lobby for laws that benefit them while hurting society in general). This actually remains true even for oligopolies where the number of competitors is reasonably small.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Chandon Seldon]

As a test, I just tried to beat this pc to death by multitasking the following: excel 2003, excel 2007, word 2003, word 2007, access 2003, access 2007, publisher 2003, publisher 2007, visual studio 2003, visual studio 2005, windows media player 11 (playing an mp3 with visualization running, coldfusion studio, firefox, ie7, opera, photoshop 7, thunderbird, and last but not least, Taskman.exe.

Wait a second. You're telling me that your OS can handle 17 idle processes and one active one when they all fit in RAM? That's amazing. Or at least it would have been in 1972...

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[NoOneInParticular]

to answer your thoughtful questions:

Tobacco. Yes. Please follow economy 101. No. No. No. Rhetorical, but okay, yes. Yes. It's about proprietary formats, not about applications.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Sczi]

Lol, heh, yes, but this is Vista, the worst operating system in the history of man that has only two pieces of compatible software and blue screens if you move the mouse too fast. Anyway, the point was that it does run the two pieces of software that were specified to be incompatible. The rest was in response to the turtle on vicodin comment. So while my rant doesn't mean everything, it does mean something. If you're actually interested in the OS's performance and you have something you'd like me to try as a test, then let me know, otherwise you're just trying to shoot the messenger. I won't presume to know precisely where you're coming from. If you have actually USED vista for anything signficant, then by all means, enlighten me.

besides, there was probably an update running in the background.. =]

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Anonymous Coward]

If I stood next to him I would kick him in the balls... But... He supports MS, he doesn't have balls...

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Atholon 64x2 2 gigs of RAM, 250Mbyte PCI express graphic card. The overall mark I got on this system by Vista is over 4.5 on a scale of 5. I installed Vista and as first task I wanted to watch a DVD movie on it. The Vista replied by asking me to reduce the resolution on my 1680x1050 screen??? A simple DVD... And nothing else is running... But ofcourse, if you turn down the Areo, you will probably be able to play the disk, but then you are running XP... ;)

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Maxo-Texas]

I agree that we are free to choose to use linux. Microsoft is certainly no electric company or gas company where a competing company would have to build an entirely new infrastructure to compete.

---

Microsoft has a softer monopoly (probably over 90% for businesses) and has taken steps to lock in that monopoly. It is our right through the government to make Microsoft stop that. Microsoft has no natural rights. If we want, we can pass a law that they have to pay a 99% tax on their profits if they wish to sell in our country, state, government, etc.

Doing that would not fair. It wouldn't encourage other businesses to take risks, build facilities, expand into our market but we could do it. Microsoft always has the option of withdrawing from the EU and then it won't be subject to their laws.

---

As far as Churches (and the scouts) and gays (and atheists, hindi's, islamics) go...
The second that they take a government benefit (freedom from taxes, free use of government property) then every citizen of society can argue they should be able to benefit from that organization. If churches want to give up their tax free status on their 5 acres of prime property down town on which they run several businesses (day care, dry cleaning) at a substantial tax free profit, then I absolutely support their right to exclude anyone they want to. But if they are getting a 2 million dollar a year tax benefit that any other non-religious group would not, then everyone who is paying extra taxes (i.e the gays.. atheists, hindi's, etc.) can lay claim to use their facilities.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Maxo-Texas]

While my roots are libertarian, it became clear to me that in a libertarian society, people with the most wealth can abuse the legal system to take away everyone else's rights.

A libertarian society *could* work- but you would keep everyone small or you would have to have a brutally powerful government that somehow stayed small anyway (impossible) that could absolutely crush abuse and abusers.

I finally decided short of taxing 100% of wealth over about 10 million dollars (to keep us a jeffersonian democracy of many tiny wealthy people), that it just isn't going to happen. I'm beginning to think that the corporate structure is fundamentally flawed and will inevitably lead to aristocracy.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[arevos]

But... He supports MS, he doesn't have balls... You're thinking of Unix.

Thank you, thank you; I'll be here all night.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[BenoitRen]

Try again with only 1 GB of RAM, and then we'll talk.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[kramulous]

Dear Bill,

Just opening up programs does not incur multitasking worthiness. Perhaps this is what you need to change when testing your 'products'. Since the opening of a program may temporarily increase processor usage while keeping the bus busy for a short period of time, it only proves than your task scheduler (or whatever you call it these days) can handle idle processes.

Also, might I suggest that you use a great little product called "OpenOffice" if you are having compatibility issues with your documents and spreadsheets. If you like this product I'm sure your donation would be welcomed. Eclipse is also a great product if you are having problems with win32, sorry my mistake, win64 compilers.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[falconwolf]

The problem with this idea for policy is defining the point at which a company becomes dominant and what happens if they get there with closed proprietary systems that are not anti-competitive in nature when they are created...

There is no problem even in that case. There are close to a billion computers right now; and Microsoft software runs on well over 80% of them all.

And what if a company gains an 80% market share by offering a superior product and or a lower price? Dominance isn't a problem in and of itself, the problem is when the party that owns a dominate position abuses that position. Such as using anticompetitive practices, which MS does.

The protocols in use RIGHT NOW must be open for public access.

All protocols should be open, put into the public domain.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[suv4x4]

By saying that vista is slow as a turtle on vicodin and that it won't run some important software, you are spreading FUD.

Thing is, I didn't say it myself, I quoted it. I don't have quite the talent to come up with amusing comparisons like that.

Also, thanks for a good laugh, you gotta realize your posts are amusing, and the "I'm something of a computer expert" just topped it all.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[falconwolf]

You are, I think confuse liberals with libertarians. The fight to 'get governments out of the way of large megacorps like Microsoft which would happily chew up even medium-sized competitors and spit their not-so-juicy leftovers out on the sidewalk' is one area where libertarians and conservatives seem to be in alliance.

No I think it's you who are confused. Yes Libertarians are for small government but they are also for self responsibility and oppose monopolies, especially those created by government. Reduce the size and power of government then they can't create monopolies by for instance barring competition.

These people will often site Adam Smith [bcgreen.com] as the grandfather of Laissez-faire capitalism and the principle of 'free market'

Yes Adam Smith was pro free markets and laissez-faire capitalism, however what many don't know or simply ignore is that he was also against monopolies saying "that a monopoly would lead to higher prices because of scarcity".

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[JohnBailey]

There is no damn monopoly. There's OSX, there's Linux, DELL and Lenovo offer it preinstalled even. And you can buy Mac machine with OSX.

Don't be naive. The whole monopoly crap is back in the mid nineties. Microsoft no longer has monopoly. There are plenty of good choices around. And exactly because of this, as I told you, many people in US I know converted to Mac this year.

I'm talking about pressing issues here, that we feel not abstractly and indirectly, but quite painfully directly: Vista is crap, and we want the ability to order our machines with XP. Why, if there is no monopoly, are you finding it difficult to get the specific OS you want from a third party vendor? Surely it is in the best interest of the vendor to sell you what you want instead of forcing you to fight to get a computer from them with the OS of choice.

It can't do Dell any good to have to disappoint or aggravate customers like this. After all.. Microsoft are still selling XP, customers still want XP, so why is it so hard to get it instead of Vista?
They have more work making sure that their hardware has all the drivers and the power required to run Vista, not to mention adding further support systems for Vista. Which is an expense they have to bear that wouldn't exist if they chose to stick with XP. Surely Dell could get their OS from elsewhere and Microsoft would be faced with giving the customer the product they want or turning away business.

Unless Microsoft are putting pressure on their customers to push Vista and making it increasingly difficult to buy XP.. and have the power to alter their prices on an individual basis and put even a large company like Dell out of business. But Dell would just go to a different supplier then wouldn't they.. Its not as if Microsoft have a monopoly any more.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

[...] I don't expect anyone to fall to their knees and kiss Vista's feet, but for the love of God, give credit where credit is due, [...] According to your post, the only credit that I could give to Microsoft is that they implemented the so-called multitasking into their latest and hottest operating system.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Sczi]

I ran 1gb for 6 months just fine, but it is definitely more responsive with 2gb. But no, I won't be downgrading to please the unpleasable.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Sczi]

So on one hand, my opinion is the gold standard, and on the other hand, my tests are crap? You could just concentrate on my conclusion that vista is pretty decent, because I'm pretty sure that was in my post. Or else you could run it yourself for a while on decent hardware and see what you think and perhaps share your conclusions with the crowd. Then there is the ever popular third option of spouting fud in public. All I'm asking for is fairness in conversation. In my opinion, Vista is getting a really bad rap on Slashdot by people whom I cannot help but suspect are not fit to judge (more precisely, they ARE fit to judge, but can't be bothered to try it).

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[JBv]

Posting that you have vista just for sight and XP to do all the bread-and-butter work sounds too much like last year's linux newbie complaining about openoffice and games on linux.

It's poetic justice on Microsoft that Windows Vista users (and fanboys) sound so much like long time linux users complaining that XP was so much easier to install, that their hardware just works (after 1e^10 driver downloads and updates) and that their favourite apps just work better on XP.

I just *love* to hear people complaining of Vista.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[udoschuermann]

I do wonder what level of fine it would take for Microsoft to really change it's way of doing things

"If you don't adhere, you can't sell here" would probably work wonders.
Either that, or impose a Eu1000 or 500% (whichever is greater) tax on each copy of the product imported or sold.
I'm sure companies like Microsoft will come around in a hurry or be locked out of the market one way or another.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[Fizzl]

Yup...
Your post actually makes me want to try to install Linux again on desktop and try out how hard it would be to get my hardware working with it.
Can't be much harder than getting it to work under Vista.

After that would be fun to try and find alternatives for the audio, video and graphics tools.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

So on one hand, my opinion is the gold standard, and on the other hand, my tests are crap? You could just concentrate on my conclusion that vista is pretty decent, because I'm pretty sure that was in my post. But where did I say any of these two claims? Where did I say that the multitasking is gold standard, or that your tests are crap? Nowhere indeed. I can even imagine that somebody who would run the same or similar tests on Linux would find Linux to be pretty decent just as well.

Or else you could run it yourself for a while on decent hardware and see what you think and perhaps share your conclusions with the crowd. The thing is, I did test extensively Windows XP 64bit, for instance. Multitasking there, and not only that, was, compared to Debian or Fedora, just bad according to my tests, which are different from yours (I do lots of numerical computing).

Then there is the ever popular third option of spouting fud in public. All I'm asking for is fairness in conversation. In my opinion, Vista is getting a really bad rap on Slashdot by people whom I cannot help but suspect are not fit to judge (more precisely, they ARE fit to judge, but can't be bothered to try it). But then, from all that I read on slashdot about Vista, I did not get the impression that it is all just fud and unjustified judgments. What you want, I gather, is that Vista gets fair hearing on slashdot. But is this not too much to ask? Imagine people asking that Linux gets the fair judgment in the mainstream media when compared to Vista or any windows for that matter.

What else is all this monopoly of Microsoft about if not, at least in part, about suppression of some information getting around?

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[petermgreen]

which is increasingly hard given many vendors do NOT offer non-Vista machines, forcing businesses to purchase standalone XP licenses or use second hand hardware
are you aware that OEM copies of vista buisness and ultimate come with downgrade rights?

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[petermgreen]

Show me the link where I can order XP based machine from DELL as end user (not business).
Is there anything stopping an individual ordering through the small buisness section?

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[petermgreen]

Afaict the big bugbears with linux hardware support are wireless networking and any very new hardware. 3D graphics also tends to need manual attention but because the graphics market is dominated by only two vendors there is lots of help out there.

Re:This isn't justice: too little, too late

[mcvos]

Um... at the risk of hijacking a perfectly good discussion of antitrust into a "liberals vs conservatives" argument, the sentence I quoted gave me pause. Are you suggesting that a traditionally liberal argument is for powerless government? Because I don't know anyone of any political stripe who perceives "small, powerless government" as a "liberal" value.

You're probably American. In Europe, liberals tend to be of the "freedom for the rich", conservative, laissez-faire variety. It's not liberals versus conservatives, it's liberals versus socialists. That said, free competition is also an economic liberal value, and EU commissioner Kroes who is trying to take down Microsoft here is a member of the Dutch conservative liberal party.

Ofcourse there are also parties with liberal values on the left side of the political spectrum, but they tend to lean towards the "freedom for the poor"-type libertarian socialism. It's the conservatives that get all the media and pretty much own the word 'liberal', though.

Least important part of the judgement...

[Anonymous Coward]

...given the size of MS coffers.

Of more significance is the fact that MS will be forced to release more code to allow competitors to compete on a level playing field with MS applications...

Re:Least important part of the judgement...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but 500 million Euro is a lot of money no matter who you are. Certainly it won't break them, but it's not like they'll never miss it.

Re:Least important part of the judgement...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of more significance is the fact that MS will be forced to release more code No.

Not code, but specifications.

Code is no good ... Microsoft has a copyright on its code. What is needed and desired is the protocol specifications, so that alternative implementations can be independently code by other parties.

Re:Least important part of the judgement...

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit with the "Oh (noes|yay), they have to release source" disinformation. They have to release specs, not source code. Of course, good specs might very well include sample code, but that's not an actual requirement.

Re: Least important part of the judgement...

[Dolda2000]

Note, though, that it isn't actually code that they have been ordered to release, but rather protocol specifications. Which is, of course, what everyone wants. No article I've read on the subject so far has made any mention of how the specifications need to be licensed, however. If anyone is in the know, please share that information.

Re:Least important part of the judgement...

[WindBourne]

That amounts to far less than 1 day of revenue for them. More importantly, they HAD more than 170 BILLION in the bank in 1999. In case, you missed the uppercase AND the bold, that is billions which is 1000 x more than a million. i.e. 500 million EU (or even dollars) is a lot of money to the average person and company (in fact, to nearly all ppl and companies on this planet). But to MS, it is less than a drop in the bucket. IF EU really wanted to force MS to change, then they would charge then a daily penalty equal to MS's EU revenue AND make it stick for the whole thing. Than and only then would MS have changed their tune. As it is, MS started saving for this on the first day that they were slapped. They set aside less than a 1 single penny per every EU sale and probably still have money left over. This is the same tactic that they have always employed. Screw over, and then keep it in court. It has proven VERY profitable.

Re:Least important part of the judgement...

[foobsr]

Seems to be pocket money to them. In another case, they seem to have won a bit more ..., Quote: "Judge overturns $1.5 bln ruling against Microsoft".

CC.

Re:Least important part of the judgement...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it a level playing field when one company has a gun pointed to their head and the remainder are free to choose their actions?

Re:Least important part of the judgement...

[BlackSnake112]

specifications to do what?

read/write to a microsoft file server?
use your own email client to work with exchange?
Use your own system to read and write to AD?

seriously, I want to know what people are looking for. I keep on seeing specifications and protocols but for what purpose? I am not trolling (even though I'll be modded a such) I do not see examples of what people are looking for, lots of complaints but not examples.

Microsoft is a monopoly, fine we get that, give me an example of what you cannot do without pulling the monopoly card.

Re:Least important part of the judgement...

[poopdeville]

Wars have been declared over less money than you're talking about.

Re:Least important part of the judgement...

[poopdeville]

The company with a gun at their head has had a gun pointed at the heads of all its competitors for the last 20 years.

Re:Least important part of the judgement...

[Anonymous Coward]

I really want to know how Microsoft is a monopoly. What do they have a monopoly on? Desktop OS ummm ever heard of Mac or Linux? Media Player? Real networks, vlc, winamp. Yeah sure they give you with windows but so they also give you wordpad for writing rtf documents. What good is an operating system if you dont have anything to do with it.

As far as releasing protocols microsoft has released its operating system API's as far as I have been programming so at least 10 years. Windows media player plays MP3's which was a platform that microsoft had nothing to do with. They have even released the .net rotor which is a lot of the .net source code. The fact is that microsoft has made efforts to give devlopers what they need to create useful and robust applications and I would wager that they are one of the best companies at helping developers get what they need. In fact they give a way a free development platform to write applications on (Visual Studio Express) and they support that with developer forums free training events and many other tools.

The fact is that the other operating system companies hold true vertical monopolies, because they sell hardware and operating systems. Microsoft does not sell computers, that there OS's run on. Yes microsoft software does run a majority of the computers in the world, there is not 1 person or 1 computer that needs to run microsoft software so they cannot be a monopoly vertical or horizontal. The reason that everybody thinks they have a monopoly is based on popular opinion not economic facts.

As far as business practices go microsoft has made some corrupt deals and have stolen software from other companies. However any software company that has been around as long as microsoft has been taken to court over corrupt deals. I personally testified against IBM in case that my company won a case based on immoral business practices.

This reminds me of people that will not shop at walmart because it hurts small business but then they shop at target.

Microsoft is not some evil corporation that is out to destroy all competition, microsoft is at the top of the game and they are trying to stay there. Let competition dictate this as long as they are putting out a good product and good support for that product let them do there job. I see no need cripple them for the sake of real media, who has an inferior product anyway.

Re:Least important part of the judgement...

[Fire Dragon]

specifications to do what?

Whatever is required at that moment.

read/write to a microsoft file server?
Can be done, but there are performance issues.

use your own email client to work with exchange?
My home machines Evolution works better than my laptops Outlook with our exchange server in most cases. But there several small things that are missing. And exchange is not just a mail server. Exchange handles the mail, calender, appointments, to-do task, an so on. If I'd just work with one desktop machine it would be OK, but I have several desktop machines, laptops, a phone, just a OWA access from field, ans so on. It's the syncronation of all those required tools that I require. And thats just for one account.

Use your own system to read and write to AD?
Now that would be something. AD is pretty much the heart of a corporate MS enviroment. AD is my day job and it makes my day decent. There are so many possibilities that you can use it for. Unfortunatelly, it is just so many that it allows.

seriously, I want to know what people are looking for. I keep on seeing specifications and protocols but for what purpose? I am not trolling (even though I'll be modded a such) I do not see examples of what people are looking for, lots of complaints but not examples.

Microsoft is a monopoly, fine we get that, give me an example of what you cannot do without pulling the monopoly card.

I don't give a shit about something being monopoly in certain field, it is the integration with all the rest of systems that matters. You just can't allways select all your system to be MS-only or *nix-based. Networks tend to interact with other systems in some level.

If AD would could be configured to handle everything that I want from user authentication, that's just fine. All the others systems would get their credentials from there and thats it. Unfortunatelly it's not working that way. You end up eith several user databases that rewuire their own administration and there is no synchronasiation between them. Add priviledges in one and you have to be sure that same things are done in others.

I can't think of any administrator that I know that wouldn't want to have a single point of access to maintaining everything.

There are small tools that can d othese integration, but there is no way that I would allow any smalltime-players 'hobby' players software to be fully integrated in corporate systems. There are certain big players that we have selected for required specified tasks, unapproves players don't get the change of being middleman doing conversions of formats.

Re: Least important part of the judgement...

[hankwang]

No article I've read on the subject so far has made any mention of how the specifications need to be licensed, however. If anyone is in the know, please share that information.

Here is the full EC ruling of 2004: Commission Decision of 24.03.2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C-3/37.792 Microsoft). It contains all the reasoning behind the decision in surprisingly non-legalese English, as well as the decision itself on page 299--301:

5a) ... make the Interoperability Information available to any undertaking having an interest in developing and distributing work group server operating system products and shall, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, allow the use of the Interoperability Information ...

What defines "reasonable" is defined in articles 1005 and further on page 280:

1008-ii) to any remuneration that Microsoft might charge for supply; such a remuneration should not reflect the strategic value stemming from Microsofts market power in the client PC operating system market or in the work group server operating system market;
1008-iii) to restrictions that Microsoft may impose as to the type of products in which the specifications may be implemented; such restrictions should not create disincentives to compete with Microsoft, or unnecessarily restrain the ability of the beneficiaries to innovate;

The appeal decision is here, but since it basically concludes with "the 2004 ruling is mostly upheld", it is not so interesting to read.

Please queue the anti EU replies here

[A beautiful mind]

From TFA:

The EU is making an example of a strong US company - that's all it is -- Kenneth Macbeth

Obviously the EU hates your freedom...

Re:Please queue the anti EU replies here

[Corporate Troll]

Won't queue anything here. Anyone who knows a bit about the EU, know that this is bollocks. They go after anyone abusing the market. As Volkswagen, for example... Not a US company at all...

Microsoft lost its appeal?

[petercruickshank]

I think Microsoft lost its appeal a long time ago...

Re:Microsoft lost its appeal?

[SpaghettiPattern]

I think Microsoft lost its appeal a long time ago...

You realize that by this you basically state that once upon a time M$ gave you a stiffy.

This very sharp deduction of mine (and which I own) is merely in Slashdot's spirit of scientific approach to matters and challenging theories by that.

A Pittance of a Fine.....

[secondhand_Buddah]

Microsoft earns more than US$ 1 Billion per month, so this fine is really not much of a deterrant to them.

Re:A Pittance of a Fine.....

[zebslash]

The problem for them is not the fine, but instead, from now on, the compliance to the ruling, which will lead them to change the content of Windows software, the parts they will be able to install on new computers. That's a lot more important than money.
Don't forget the ruling is 152-page long, and therefore, they will have to digest and comply with all the court orders to avoid paying even more fine. That may be difficult for them in a market that becomes more competitive.

Re:A Pittance of a Fine.....

[arivanov]

The fine is a percentage of worldwide revenue. Even one fine can make a considerable difference, because it is calculated to be comparable with the average operating margins for large businesses. IT usually has these slightly higher than most other industries so a company can sustain one fine. One more for let's say Vista's DRM and lock-out of 3rd party security apps and Microsoft balance sheet will go into red colour numbers.

Re:A Pittance of a Fine.....

[mrchaotica]

The problem for them is not the fine, but instead, from now on, the compliance to the ruling...

Microsoft: "Oh no! Now we'd better comply, or the EU might fine us a pittance again!"

Microsoft could afford to ignore the ruling the first time; why would subsequent times be any different? Mark my words: the only thing that'll get Microsoft to actually comply will be to either bar it from doing business in the EU, revoke its copyrights, or both.

Damages, but sanctions?

[WPIDalamar]

So $690 million is nice for damages, but without a monitor, will any of the sanctions stick?

I mean $690 million is almost a rounding error at Microsoft.

Re:Damages, but sanctions?

[jkrise]

So $690 million is nice for damages, but without a monitor ...

Has Microsoft started bundling monitors and keyboards with their OSes?

Jus' kidding!!

Re:Damages, but sanctions?

[sepluv]

The fines will increase (exponentially I believe) until they pay. The court can freeze and seize their European assets and they have much of their money within the EU in Ireland as a US tax dodge. Also, the EU is by far MS's largest market. Not complying would be a BAD idea.

BTW, the legal detail is over at Groklaw (basically the court sided with the EC except a minor point about the EC giving too much power to the MS appointed monitoring trustee) and there is a joint FSFE/Samba press release. Also, the the court published the full judgement and other court docs.

Re:Damages, but sanctions?

[will_die]

They can have the monitor, they just cannot force Microsoft to pay the costs of the monitor.

Re:Damages, but sanctions?

[debrain]

The fines will increase (exponentially I believe) until they pay. The court can freeze and seize their European assets and they have much of their money within the EU in Ireland as a US tax dodge. Also, the EU is by far MS's largest market. Not complying would be a BAD idea.

Typically there is pre-judgment interest (say, around 4%), and post-judgment interest (say, around 8%) on the judgment.

The court can seize assets as well, but typically in extreme circumstances, for example if there is a risk of flight. It is unlikely here, even if Microsoft flaunts the order. In that case the company could be held in contempt and risk an entirely new judgment. Court-ordered seizure is unlikely given the size and apparent permanence of the Microsoft company, and that it is publicly traded on a stock exchange which would almost certainly recognize foreign judgments of the EU.

Re:Damages, but sanctions?

[sepluv]

This has being going on for a decade. AFAIK, they are still been fined daily amounts of millions of euros for not paying the EC's fines for non-compliance from both 2004 and in 2006. I understand that those weren't court judgments but the EC has a sort of semi-judicial capacity unlike member states governments. I think MS will pay up now, but if they don't they probably don't have many more chances left before their assets start getting seized.

Go Samba

[Marcion]

The Court of First Instance's judgement, like the commission's before it, sees Samba as the means for competition, in the Work group server space (i.e. file servers, print servers, etc). All potential competitors to Microsoft are using Samba, (the commissions own research found that 98% of competing products in this space use Samba), so it is good that the commission and the CFI are keen to get the documentation from Microsoft in a form that open source projects such as samba can use.

P.S. Shamless plug, I ranted a lot about this on my own site

Re:Go Samba

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just hope that Microsoft doesn't decide to get a little medieval (or litigious) and throw up a bunch of lawsuits to stop Samba's blatant infringement (assuming you think software patents are worth the paper they're printed on). Not that they would win -- they wouldn't have to. But it would sure make all those corp customers uneasy for the several years that the courts deal with it.

Re:Go Samba

[caluml]

The Court of First Instance's judgement, like the commission's before it, sees Samba as the means for competition, in the Work group server space (i.e. file servers, print servers, etc). All potential competitors to Microsoft are using Samba, (the commissions own research found that 98% of competing products in this space use Samba), so it is good that the commission and the CFI are keen to get the documentation from Microsoft in a form that open source projects such as samba can use.

We get it. But how will it affect Samba?

Re:Go Samba

[tolan-b]

Software patents aren't valid in Europe. Any idea where most Samba devs are based? I have no idea, just wondering.

Re:Go Samba

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just hope that Microsoft doesn't decide to get a little medieval (or litigious) and throw up a bunch of lawsuits to stop Samba's blatant infringement Where do people get stupid ideas like that from?

Microsoft networking is an obscured version of the SMB protocol. SMB is IBM's invention, not Microsoft's.

Microsoft obscured IBM's SMB protocol into Windows networking after Microsoft had gained a dominant market share. Microsoft has no patent about that obscuration ... because in order to get a patent one must reveal how an invention works.

Samba infringes nothing. Samba is just another implementation of IBM's SMB protocol, obscured in the same trade-secret way that Microsoft obscured it. It is perfectly legal (and in no way infringing anything) to reverse engineer a trade secret.

Patents clearly do not, and cannot apply here.

Re:Go Samba

[Anonymous Coward]

it doesn't matter if patents apply to SMB or even the new SMB 2.0 stuff -- it matters if they can pursue a case with a sympathetic judge, and generate lots of publicity, thereby scaring customers. one can argue (convincingly) that all software patents are wortheless -- that's moot in the court of public (and customer) opinion.

Re:Go Samba

[LuSiDe]

Let's just hope that Microsoft doesn't decide to get a little medieval (or litigious) and throw up a bunch of lawsuits to stop Samba's blatant infringement (assuming you think software patents are worth the paper they're printed on). Not that they would win -- they wouldn't have to. But it would sure make all those corp customers uneasy for the several years that the courts deal with it.

Microsoft is welcome to try this at the EU court, US court, or Alien court. Of those 3 however only the US court recognizes software patents. It'd look also kinda clumsy. Microsoft, in the eyes of the EU (EC), that is. If Microsoft would like to pull this trick in the EU or Alien court nobody would take the claims seriously, and if they'd pull a SCO it'd make them look like a monopoly once again. No my friends, Neelie Kroes is pretty clear: from here on Microsoft's power will decline. But yes, competitors like Apple and Samba need to stand up. Judges, legislators and many other functions of society too.

Re:Go Samba

[Marcion]

>We get it. But how will it affect Samba?
Well Samba will get the docs without royalties or other things that stop it producing GPL3 software. Also other people can have more confidence since the EU backs it.

Re:Go Samba

[bcrowell]

So, what is the current status of integrating samba with desktop linux? Maybe four years ago, I brought my own FreeBSD box to work, plugged it in to the network, and got samba working. Getting samba to work was a big hassle (editing lots of text config files, reading lots of poorly written documentation), and once I did get it to work, it was flaky, e.g., my print jobs would sometimes freeze up the queue, which didn't make me very popular :-) Today, I have ubuntu on that same machine on my desk at work, but I haven't even messed with samba. When I need to print, I upload my file to my own server, download it onto a windows machine, and print from there.

So for someone using a modern Gnome/Ubuntu setup, is samba automatically installed? Is it discoverable via the Gnome UI? Does it Just Work for basic functions like printing?

Although I'm rooting for the samba folks to seize the day and remove the obstacles in the way of putting a linux box on a Windows network, I'm a little skeptical that it will ever work well enough for a non-enthusiast to want to use it. For instance, where I work we have a Minolta photocopier that also functions as a printer, and it's really useful for doing things like double-sided printing. To get that to work, though, you need to open a Windows dialog box that gives you access to all the zillion different options. Even if MS published all the specs for their networking stuff, I'm not holding my breath for Minolta to write a similar GUI interface that will work on a linux box via samba.

Thanks, EU

[kevmatic]

For punishing Microsoft's customers. Now they get to justify their high prices and might even raise them, to pay off this fine.
If the EU thinks that this will impact the checkbook of anybody on Microsoft's payroll, or even of their investors, they're insane.

Next time, punish the company, not the company's clients.

Re:Thanks, EU

[petermgreen]

Next time, punish the company, not the company's clients.
Sadly the EU has very little power to do this as those who really run MS are in the USA under the protection of a friendly governement.

Re:Thanks, EU

[Anonymous Coward]

The fine is a piddly little amount of cash to a company the size of Microsoft. The fine isn't the point. The point is that the ruling also upholds the requirement that Microsoft provide documentation for protocols and file-formats that will allow competitors to interoperate with Microsoft products.

While we're on the subject, if you're a Microsoft customer and they raise prices on you: that's what happens when a company gains a monopoly on the market. If you had real choice, you'd be able to change to a different company and pay less.

Re:Thanks, EU

[Anonymous Coward]

While we're on the subject, if you're a Microsoft customer and they raise prices on you: that's what happens when a company gains a monopoly on the market. If you had real choice, you'd be able to change to a different company and pay less.

Right. Competition akin to the type evidenced by the pricing employed by oil companies on that commodity called gasoline, maybe? The danger lies in open source / free software being co-opted by commercial interests and pricing it on par with the proprietary software from Microsoft. At least with open source / free software there remains a choice of legally obtaining it outside the distribution and support channels of the commercial enterprises.

Re:Thanks, EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Competition akin to the type evidenced by the pricing employed by oil companies on that commodity called gasoline, maybe?

I have no idea what your point it, but oil prices are clearly managed via. a cartel that would be illegal in almost any other market on Earth. Oil prices have as much to do with capitalism as a Soviet Five Year Plan.

Court's press realease

[zombie_monkey]

http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp07/aff/cp070063en.pdf

They have not yet paid another fine that was imposed on them for not paying this fine, as the BBC article mentions, although in no great depth:

Last year, Microsoft was told to pay daily fines adding up to 280.5 million euros over a six-month period, after it failed to adhere to the 2004 decision. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4552214.stm - another BBC piece specifically about the daily fines. Does anyone know if they've paid them or not by now?

Re:Court's press realease

[Anonymous Coward]

obviously not >.>,
But a 3 years old daily fine?
I think that THIS can be a real threat to their wealth not the punny fine....
I wonder how they'll even pass the month that way....
(I mean 250 * 365 * 3 = 2 700 000, adn that's if the fine was 250bucks a day)
Now how much times can you finance the Common Agricultural Policy with that?

captcha : stable

Re:Court's press realease

[RealGrouchy]

Kinda reminds me of that quote from Apu in the Simpsons: "Mr. Homer, I have asked you kindly to please quit mangling with my merchandise. You leave me no choice but to ask you again!"

- RG>

It's not about fines, it's about Samba and freesw

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

Ignore the fines, they're nothing.

The important thing is that when MS eventually publish their specs, they will not be allowed exclude free software from using them.

This is what FSFE and Samba have been working for since 2001, not fines.

http://fsfeurope.org/projects/ms-vs-eu/

who cares..,

[waity]

much as I love to MS-Bash (I'm a Linux using /. reader after all ;-) ).

Why does bundling apps cause a problem (putting aside, usability, bugs exploits, etc.)? Every MS machine I've used quickly had firefox installed.

to use the much abused car-computer analogy, every car comes with a bundled CD player etc. anyone heard about Sony suing Nissan for providing cars with a competitive player? nope, me neither...

my 2p...

Re:who cares..,

[Aim Here]

"Every MS machine I've used quickly had firefox installed."

How many had IE uninstalled?

Re:who cares..,

[deftcoder]

anyone heard about Sony suing Nissan for providing cars with a competitive player?

Exactly. The whole 'bundling' deal lead to them having a monopoly on pretty much everything desktop-related (internet browsing, media players, etc.) because there WAS no competition. OEMs weren't allowed to bundle additional software with Windows, or they'd lose their licenses to sell Windows entirely. Hence the original fines and anti-trust accusations.

Re:who cares..,

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so let's force them to uninstall IE.

Jimmy Noobus buys a new Windows PC because he likes playing games and most of the software he's paid for works on it. Jimmy Noobus unpacks it, sets it up, and turns it on. Jimmy Noobus wants to access the internet............doh!

Re:who cares..,

[headkase]

As for a CD player "bundled" with a car, CD's follow an ISO standard so with all manufacturers following a standard the consumer is completely free to replace the player with another from a different supplier. This means that competition is unhindered so the market can work as intended - the case of providing a CD player with a car is a matter of convenience for the customer not an anticompetitive act.

Re:who cares..,

[petermgreen]

Antitrust legislation is about stopping people using a monopoly or near monopoly position in one market as a lever to gain one in another market.

Since ford doesn't have a monopoly or near monopoly they aren't affected by antitrust legislation.

Re:who cares..,

[Aim Here]

Except that the point of the unbundling thing is so that it would be reasonable for OEM's (or even Microsoft, if it felt like it) to bundle windows with netscape or opera or Mosaic or whatever instead, back before Microsoft destroyed the commercial browser market. The whole purpose of Microsoft bundling IE for free with every Windows computer (and making it impossible to uninstall) was to destroy Netscape by forcing everyone to have an equivalent product to Netscape's already installed on their desktop, whether they liked it or not.

The fact that IE was free came as a big shock to everyone, even to the guys who made it and sold it to Microsoft; Microsoft fucked those guys over by offering them a royalty on sales of the browser, which was $0.

Re:who cares..,

[Anonymous Coward]

A closer analogy would be that other manufacturers were able to make add-on CD players, but there would be no wiring provided to connect them to the car, and the original car manufacturer's one was:

a) in the most convenient position, and
b) couldn't be removed

Furthermore, as other manufacturers found clever different places to put their CD player, each new year's car model would have a modification to the dashboard to make putting a CD player there impossible.

And later on we would have things like the stereo speaker leads detecting a new player in the car and refusing to carry a signal.....

Re:who cares..,

[agingell]

The car computer analogy completely breaks down due to the fact that there is no single car manufacturer who supplies 95% of all cars.
If that were the case then you can bet that Sony would sue if that manufacturer chose Philips etc. instead.

In the car market you have a relatively large number of manufacturers and it is unlikely that they will all bundle the same make of CD player.

Re:who cares..,

[CmdrGravy]

An even closer analogy would be if the car was in fact a small box built from plastic and containing various chips and fans which allowed it to control viewing screens and sound output devices.

The company which creates the controlling systems for these boxes, lets call these "software", are in the business of writing general software which allows the boxes to operate but also decide to include specific software to allow the viewing screens to display a primitive representation of a consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of people throughout the world, which we'll call the World Wide Web. By providing software to access the World Wide Web as part of the general operating software for the boxes this company is placing a huge obstacle in the path of any other companies who wish to sell software to access the web.

I hope that makes things a bit easier to visualise.

Re:who cares..,

[seriesrover]

Doesn't that then dismiss the browser wars? MS aren't stopping Firefox (or NS back in the days) rendering HTML - its really just a matter of convenience of pulling down the software.

Re:who cares..,

[headkase]

See: here.

Re:who cares..,

[Almahtar]

Every MS machine I've used quickly had firefox installed. That would probably be because you're a Linux using /.er. Grandma doesn't know what a firefox is.

anyone heard about Sony suing Nissan for providing cars with a competitive player? Nissan's evident monopoly Makes such a bundle crippling for a business making CD players. Ok, sarcasm aside, actions must be taken in context. Bundling (without option or exception) is less of a problem when you aren't the ONLY choice available. On top of that, realize that Nissan doesn't make the stereo they choose to bundle, and often cars have stereo upgrade options. You can't order your copy of Windows to come with Firefox instead of IE, and Microsoft benefits quite directly from people using IE. That doesn't hold up with the Nissan stereo analogy.

The problem isn't "bundling products", the problem is intentional leverage of market share to maintain more market share.

legislating market share?

[Anonymous Coward]

The facts of the case are old news, esp. media player bundling. What is new -- and alarming for anything potentially innovative or disruptive -- is Neelie Kroes (EU competition czar) saying that the desired outcome is for Microsoft to have 50% market share (or at least a significant reduction). That's putting the cart before the horse. What if Microsoft went open source and released a Vista UI based on a linux kernel -- would the EU still want Microsoft to have 50% market share and keep punishing them if they didn't?

Quibble all you want about the merits of the law, the fines, today's decision, etc. (or don't) -- that's the right kind of discussion to have. It's when they show that their real goal is a desired outcome, regardless of the means, that I get upset as an entrepreneur.

Re:legislating market share?

[Marcion]

It a mainstay of classic economic thought that competition is good and monopolies are bad, the classical definition of monopoly was actually 25%. The problem with having companies have more than that is that they start to wield control over the rest, their size allows them to game access to customers and suppliers.

You argument seems to stem from the misbelief that Operating System software is a competitive market and that Microsoft got to 90% by competing fairly. If so then you would be very wrong.

If you read today's judgement, you will see that Microsoft has regularly abused its' position by bundling, threats, bribes, agreements with OEMs and so on.

Operating Systems is not a competitive market at all, if you use Linux then you will know that the biggest problem is not Windows itself but the fact that it is so dominant. As soon as you use Linux you find that shops, ISPs, firms, manufacturers and so on treat you as a second class citizen. This needs to be broken for the social good.

Re:legislating market share?

[Hognoxious]

would the EU still want Microsoft to have 50% market share and keep punishing them if they didn't?

Hell no, that's way too much!

Re:legislating market share?

[Anonymous Coward]

I use linux at home and work, and I don't have an inferiority complex.

I do think it's strange that the EU commissioner would say "our goal is for Microsoft to have 50% market share" instead of saying "our goal is open competition". That's like Bush saying "our goal is for no one faction to have 50% of the Iraqi parliament" vs. saying "our goal is a free and open election."

If they keep focusing on the ends, not the means, there's no telling where it will end. Will EU citizens be fined for buying Microsoft software? What happens when Red Hat gets 50% in a country's server market... will the local anti-competition authorities start focusing on reduced market share targets?

Re:legislating market share?

[Shados]

The one thing about that final argument: If you use a mac, quite a bit of shops, isps, firms, manufacturers, etc will give you their support just fine. Yet Windows doesnt dominate any more or less while someone use Macs...

Re:legislating market share?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your taking the quote out of Context. Maintaining competition, not killing Microsoft, is their stated goal.

Re:legislating market share?

[fbjon]

I use linux at home and work, and I don't have an inferiority complex. But you're treated as inferior or unimportant by countless companies, whether you like it or not.

I do think it's strange that the EU commissioner would say "our goal is for Microsoft to have 50% market share" instead of saying "our goal is open competition". That's like Bush saying "our goal is for no one faction to have 50% of the Iraqi parliament" vs. saying "our goal is a free and open election." The way I see it is that Microsoft can either stop abusing their position as a monopoly, or keep doing what they're doing, but with a reduced market share. Microsoft can do whatever they want, unless their market share is too large. Since Microsoft clearly wants to do whatever they want, their market share needs to drop accordingly, in order for the economy to be healthy.

What happens when Red Hat gets 50% in a country's server market... will the local anti-competition authorities start focusing on reduced market share targets? Are you saying, if another company were in Microsoft's position, what would happen? Well, the same thing would happen, that's what.

Re:sheeeit.

[Simias]

I saw a couple in a store here in france, next to the "normal" ones at the same price.
I wondered if someone would actually buy it, if not by mistake.

Re:sheeeit.

[nutshell42]

The idea was to create a level playing field for MS, Apple, Real and others to convince OEMs to include their media player.

Just like the browser wars any competing media player had to fight against one that was installed on just about every PC anyway. An advantage MS used to sell their WM tech. Unfortunately as somebody already pointed out, it was too little, too late and more of a symbolic gesture. Other parts of the ruling (documenting the APIs) were more important.

XP(N) was just a side effect that MS milked for propaganda purposes (Look at those stupid eurocrats! Noone wants a crippled Windows, they just want to punish a successful company, stupid socialist French, yaddayadda)

The contradiction of capitalism

[SD-Arcadia]

You say you want competition in a free market. You start out with a bunch of competitors. But every competing company strives to become a monopoly to ensure profits, it's not a secret. In the long run, one of them dominates the market and becomes such a monopoly, it's not a surprise outcome. Then you turn around and declare that to be illegal. You split the company up or write fines. Which leaves you not with the desired competitive atmosphere but a wounded monopoly, still a monopoly nevertheless. This goes on in every sector, until some catastrophic event like war or financial crisis. At which point you call in the state to fix everything up. You get state investments. And then, in the spirit of capitalism, the state will privatize these, because a free competitive market is better. Back to square 1. Repeat.

Re:The contradiction of capitalism

[Notquitecajun]

That's nice. Are you complaining or do you have a solution which actually produces real results, good profits, and generally makes people's lives better when implemented?

Re:The contradiction of capitalism

[N3wsByt3]

"You split the company up or write fines. Which leaves you not with the desired competitive atmosphere but a wounded monopoly, still a monopoly nevertheless."

Does AT&T ring a bell, mayhaps?

The company got split up, exactly as you say, and it's monopoly was over, and competition and innovation were abound.

While it may be true that a company strives to become a monopoly, it's equally true the state should strive to *not* let a company become a monopoly (or at least, deal with their abusive because of the monopoly-position). Quod licit Jovis non licit bovis; a surprising outcome has nothing to do with it.

Re:The contradiction of capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Does AT&T ring a bell, mayhaps?

The company got split up, exactly as you say, and it's monopoly was over, and competition and innovation were abound.

Only in the long distance market - all baby bells became regional monopolies.

While it may be true that a company strives to become a monopoly, it's equally true the state should strive to *not* let a company become a monopoly (or at least, deal with their abusive because of the monopoly-position). Quod licit Jovis non licit bovis; a surprising outcome has nothing to do with it.

States are funded by corporate lobby, why should they "strive" for such an end? Don't you know? The "new and improved" AT&T is back now.

The problem with monetary judgements

[downix]

I knew a guy who was well off. He'd water his lawn during droughts, and pay the fine every time. It was nothing to him, as he carelessly wasted water that other people needed to drink. Our areas reservoir dropped by a record 12 feet that year. Did he care about the hundreds of fines he recieved? Not a bit.

Fining Microsoft is much the same case, it means nothing. Barely a blip on their radar. You want to really penalize them, start trustbusting. "Oh, I'm sorry Microsoft, you cannot sell your OS within our territory with Media Player, you must bundle it with this other player. Oh, it costs you $25 per copy to bundle it? Too bad, oh, and you now are under price-restrictions as well, and you have to drop the price of Windows to boot. I figure $5 OEM cost. What was that, you'd be loosing $20 for every machine that ships with Windows? Well, it is your choice weither you sell it to OEM's now, isn't it? Now let's talk about Internet Explorer, shall we?"

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[Idaho]

I knew a guy who was well off. He'd water his lawn during droughts, and pay the fine every time. It was nothing to him, as he carelessly wasted water that other people needed to drink. Our areas reservoir dropped by a record 12 feet that year. Did he care about the hundreds of fines he recieved? Not a bit.

Yes, that's capitalism for you. If you don't like it, move to a different country. I would suggest a communist state, where such problems never occur.

<insert "soviet russia" joke here>

Alternatively, you could try to get your local government to substantially raise the fines for such violations.

The latter sounds like a better idea to me, I'm hoping the EU will keep doing the same thing to Microsoft as well - they've been milking their office/windows monopoly long enough, it's about time we moved on to using open standards, as happened in website development a couple of years ago.

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[downix]

The problem is, you raise the fines, you only truely hurt the small guy. Finland went with a "fine is a percentage of yearly earnings" and it helped them a lot. But, money is also only money to some people. What about restrictions, such as putting a flow-control valve. "Sorry Mr. Smith, you only are allowed 12 gallons per day, so use them wisely" for those who are chronic violators, similar to what is done with drivers licenses.

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[vadim_t]

I don't see anything wrong with what this guy is doing.

The fines should be large enough to compensate for his waste. If they aren't then they should be increased until they are.

The money from the fines should be used to improve the infrastructure, like waste treatment or desalination plants.

Same goes for MS: The fines should be large enough to compensate for the damage MS is causing and used to repair it. The fines should be large enough that the benefit MS obtains by continuing their behavior is smaller than the fines they pay.

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[Hognoxious]

He'd water his lawn during droughts, and pay the fine every time. It was nothing to him

That's why I'm a fan of doubling the fine on each subsequent offence. Likewise for jail sentences. The laws of mathematics, economics and biology interact in a rather elegant way to make it very unlikely you'll persitently reoffend.

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[Bloke down the pub]

Finland went with a "fine is a percentage of yearly earnings" and it helped them a lot. But, money is also only money to some people.

I know you nordics are notoriously liberal, so I expect you don't have things like stocks or the birch - but have you really gone so far as abolishing prison?

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[Waffle Iron]

Alternatively, you could try to get your local government to substantially raise the fines for such violations.

A more effective deterrent might be to rule that repeat offenders' lawns receive a complementary treatment with Roundup courtesy of the local public works department.

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[Anonymous Coward]

But that doesn't actually do anything to deter the offender from repeating their offense. Seeing as the offender is probably a spitefull bastard, they'll just pour the water non-stop down the sewer. Or onto the dead lawn if you then block their sewer.

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[marcosdumay]

MS don't have enough money to compensate the damage they've done.

The objective of a fine is to discourage a behaviour, not to compensate a damage. For the later one have indenizations.

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[WindBourne]

Hey, a bullet to the brain works better. Oh wait, that would make us China. So would the use of roundup.

In Colorado, if you violate a restriction x times (x is ~ 10), most of the water districts cut you off from water. That is far better than roundup or the bullet approach.

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[Waffle Iron]

Oh wait, that would make us China. So would the use of roundup.

That doesn't logically follow. At any rate, no water to flush toilets is a more draconian punishment, and closer to your "China" criterion, than a brown lawn.

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[WindBourne]

Round up kills the lawn, not just brown it. Basically, you destroy property.
Shutting off water is normally followed by the owner coming in realy quick and promising that they WILL abide by the law, and the water is turned back on. In addition, the water useage will then be monitored on a several day point. Makes sense since the individual is stealing from others. China would never be that nice.

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[Lord_Slepnir]

That's just brilliant: Make it impossible for them to turn a profit on OEM sales. They'll stop selling OEM windows. Dell will be forced sell computers with no OS on them. While Free software advocates will be thrilled that they can avoid paying the "Windows Tax" (Something they could do anyway with a few calls to Dell, but now they don't have to do even that!), but 99% of consumers will be confused and upset at Dell that they now have to buy and install their own OS. They'll be even more upset that they can't get the reduced OEM price any more.

Yes, they should offer a version of windows that doesn't have IE and Media Player. Yes, OEMs should offer it, and yes, they should be able to charge whatever they want for it. If it costs them more money to remove Media Player from Windows, then they should be able to charge that extra money if they want to. It's called capitalism and the free market, and it's worked oh-so-well for the past few hundred years. There should be some controls (like forcing them to ship sans-media player and IE), but they shouldn't be communist level controls where you force the company to lose money on every sale just because you don't like them.

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[RightSaidFred99]

Yeah, they tried that. It's called "communism". It doesn't work so well. Do you even know what "trustbusting" or a "trust" is? Microsoft isn't one. They're not even a monopoly in any meaningful sense unless you think consumer choice in an open market can create a monopoly, in which case you're simply a...poor thinker.

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[NoOneInParticular]

So, 95% market share in the desktop market doesn't count as a monopoly? And that when 25% marketshare is already considered potentially disruptive in other markets? The way a monopoly came into being doesn't matter at all, the question is how to get rid of it, and recreate an open market once again.

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[RightSaidFred99]

It does matter. You can't, in a rational world, have a monopoly on intellectual property. Furthermore, consumer choice can't create a monopoly. The only time monopoly law makes sense is in the case of government granted monopolies over limited, physical resources or in cases of grave danger to society. Neither is the case. There are plenty of OS alternatives, if consumers decide they want a single source for OS's, because of compatibility concerns, the market has spoken.

In other words, nobody but angry, bitter nerds or MS competitors want 4 OS's with 25% market share. It would be a nightmare. Once again, the free market proves its wisdom over communist and socialist scum.

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[zippthorne]

You're looking at it the wrong way, as a fine for violating a restriction. You have to look at it the way the wealthy waterer looks at it: It's just a higher cost on the extra water, a higher price which he can well afford.

What you do is institute airline-pricing to find the real price of the water without pricing the small guy out of the market: each additional gallon over the first hundred (or thousand, or whatever you pick) costs more than the last by an exponential function. You choose the parameters and the cutoff such that everyone can afford a minimum amount of water and your pond dries up at an acceptable rate.

If you don't have enough water to supply the minimum plus a little bit more for luxury-use then you need to either encourage people to leave or find another source of water.

That is the capitalist way to manage a limited resource.

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[kramulous]

Here in Brisbane, Australia (Pop. 3 million) continual repeat offenders of using more than 140 litres of water per person per day will have the household water supply turned down to a trickle that is the minimal world health standard.

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[petermgreen]

The thing with jail is that prisoners are a big drain on society. They do little if anything productive and yet are kept at the taxpayers expense in a high security and therefore expensive to run place.

IIRC the US already has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world! Do all those people really need to be in prison?

P.S. I have heared that americans have to spend more to execute someone that to keep them in prison for life. Is this really true and if so why.

Re:The problem with monetary judgements

[Hognoxious]

They do little if anything productive and yet are kept at the taxpayers expense in a high security and therefore expensive to run place.

That's no way to speak about Congress!

Seriously, I once saw a documentary about a prison that started a farm - mainly to keep the inmates busy. Then they were more or less self sufficent in some foodstuffs, and it got to the point where the place ended up with a surplus that they could sell. So it's not inevitable that they'll be unproductive.

Re:Quel surprise!

[Bogtha]

Surprise surprise, a European court decided to rob an American company of half a billion dollars

Surprise surprise, a European court punished a company for breaking the law. Don't blame the EU for not slapping them on the wrist like the USA did. Perhaps if the USA enforced its own laws properly then it wouldn't have been necessary for the EU to pursue this case.

Re:Quel surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, right. things like hardware maker arm-twisting, predatory pricing, bribing governments to use their software, bribing governments to push their agenda all contribute to the quality of their software and to the competitive, efficient and pro-customer software market, really. and, btw, the only thing that has made microsoft being a bit more pro-customer recently hasn't been government interference -- that was always too little and too late. the only reason microsoft is opening up is the alternative opensource has provided.

I don't think so ..

[rs232]

"The European Court of First Instance upheld the ruling that Microsoft had abused its dominant market position" 'It did this by refusal to supply and authorize the use of interoperability information and tying of the Windows client PC operating system and Windows Media Player'

Open the file formats? Here, have some source code

The file formats are not open when they are owned by a single company, the source isn't open when it is tied to proprietary formats.

"How about we just use XML?"

Microsoft XML isn't open when it is tied to proprietary schemas and closed blobs.

"A free web browser couldn't compete because MSIE works out of the box"

Then why tie MSIE so tightly to the OS that it can't be removed, a decision that lead directly to the current spam/phising virus infestation - ACTIVEX ...

was: Re:Quel surprise!

Re:I don't think so ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Standardized file formats are not owned by a single company. OOXML is ECMA standardized, and through that standardization committee will eventually become ISO stanardized. Yes, there are problems with the standard, but they are all minor.

The OOXML XSDs are not proprietary. Microsoft has made them freely available under a very permissive license for the past several years. And these schemas do not contain binary blobs unless the user explicitly links in binary information or automation objects. The tags that illicit the most complaints are the tags explicitly marked as obsolete and are not used by Office.

MSIE is "tied to the OS" for the same reasons that Konqueror is tied to KDE; it is a shared library reused by the Explorer shell to provide similar services. It's called modularity, and it's a good design. This was an inevitable result.

Re:I don't think so ..

[rs232]

I don't know who writes your material, but it is top class all the same. What a shame someone has to spend their time torturing the language just to earn a crust .. :)

"OOXML is ECMA standardized .. Yes, there are problems with the standard, but they are all minor"

'The goal of the Technical Committee is to produce a formal standard for office productivity applications within the Ecma International standards process which is fully compatible with the Office Open XML Formats '

"The OOXML XSDs are not proprietary. Microsoft has made them freely available .."

'Like the specification itself, the license contains a seIf-contradiction: it is a promise that is not, in practise, a promise'

"MSIE is "tied to the OS" for the same reasons that Konqueror is tied to KDE; it is a shared library reused by the Explorer shell to provide similar services. It's called modularity, and it's a good design. This was an inevitable result"

'modularity' must have a different meaning in your universe where in the modular MSIE can't be removed without breaking the OS. Konqueror can be totally removed from this Ubuntu or not even installed, without breaking the OS.

MSIE was first tied to the OS to kill NETSCAPE, remember to cut off their oxygen supply. There was no valid technical reason for doing so. That they later on buried part of it in the OS regardless of the security implications merely demonstrates the priorities at Redmond at the time.

I still don't like it.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Big as it is, 600 m$ is chump change for MSFT and it would shrug and treat it as cost of doing business. Further this creates a "rally around our flag" effect kind of support of MSFT. Many Americans would go, "The damned Europeans, the gall they have punishing a Red White an Blue company.." .

What I would really like to see is that the customers of MSFT see that it is in their best interest in having an alternative to MSFT in the desktop, server, office documentation products arena that will benefit by perfect 100% compatible interoperability. No customer would buy a Samsung TV that can play only Samsung DVD player. But why these corporations don't demand such compatibility?

One answer is that, MSFT tax is not very big. Just 40 billion dollars a year max. For most companies, payroll, medical insurance, office rent, furniture, liability insurance, transportation, travel etc cost more than office PC/laptop. So they are not looking for savings here.

Second, companies only focus on the differentials with their competitor. Stated differently, Coke does not care how much it spends on pc/laptops and office software as long as its competitor, Pepsi, is not spending a significantly lower amount on the same category. This explains the herd like behavior of the corporations. No body looked to outsource to India till about year 2000. One did. Showed some possible cost savings. Whether or not the savings were real, that first company's investment in India is real. Suddenly every suit is asking, "what if it pays off big time for them? What if we get left behind. Let us play it safe, hedge our bets and let us also have a presence in India."

I don't know when it will happen. But at some point some big company would make it a priority to have a second vendor in the office software arena, and invest a sum to show it is serious. Like a herd every suit who was asking, "What is our India strategy?" would be asking "What is our second vendor for office strategy?". Of course, not without some serious kicking and screaming and "Total cost of ownership" studies funded by MSFT. But when the corporate pendulum swings, it swings inexorably and usually it will go well past what is reasonable reach the other irrational extreme, corporations investing so much on "second vendor" strategy that the saving don't justify the investment. But that won't deter these suits, It never has.

Re:I still don't like it.

[Archtech]

'Many Americans would go, "The damned Europeans, the gall they have punishing a Red White an Blue company.."'

The difference this time is that the EU is not some puny little nation that the USA can lean on until it gives way - or else launch an invasion and remove the obstructive government and justice system. Of course the USA could threaten to nuke Brussels, but I don't think that would look too good...

As for $690 million being chump change to MS, the solution is obvious. Apply a relative, rather than absolute fine. For example, 50% of the latest year's total profits. That would get their attention - and fund a lot of useful government programs in Europe, too.

Re:I still don't like it.

[DaveV1.0]

Wow. You obviously hate America and Americans. Why don't you just stop using American products all together, mmmkay.

Re:I still don't like it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Many Americans would go, "The damned Europeans, the gall they have punishing a Red White an Blue company.." .

Ok, I'll bite the troll. Find me a single American who would honestly say that.

Re:I still don't like it.

[MathFox]

The EU is punishing a company for violation of EU competition laws. Most of the time European companies, but this time it is an US company. (Isn't that company under US court overview for some actions?)
The problem is that EU competition law has some restrictions on the size of the fine, it used to be 10% of revenue maximum at the time MS was fined... currently the maximum fine is 25% of revenue. However, it is not common in Europe to go for the maximum punishment on the first offence. While the 500 million Euro may feel like a parking fine to Microsoft, the next fine is likely to be bigger.
Note: This is the verdict on appeal in the "Windows XP" case... Microsoft has appealed a few "heel dragging" additional fines too. The European Commission has not sat silent during this appeal, but started investigating the "Windows Vista" complaints (add a dash of Office to that too). There is no Commission verdict on that yet, but I predict a guilty there too (firewalls, anti-virus).

Re:I still don't like it.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

You think it is a troll? You will find a few columnists draw attention to the fact that the pesky Europeans are acting against an American company. You might even see a few congressmen say that. That effect is real. You will find in this very thread who will see MSFT a victim of bullying by foreign governments.

Re:Quel surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

... Whereas an American court /won't/ punish an American company for breaking the law - provided that company is rich enough.

Wishful thinking by EU

[Anonymous Coward]

"Once illegal abuse has been removed and competitors are
free to compete on the merits, the logical consequence of that
would be to expect Microsoft's market share to fall," spokesman
Jonathan Todd said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUKL1720058720070917?rpc=44

I'm no big fan of Microsoft but the statements made by the EU spokes-people are more wishful thinking than reality. Even with "fair" competition Microsoft will still dominate due to the strong network effect inherent in operating systems used by the general public.

Re:Wishful thinking by EU

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not illegal to have a monopoly so the EU shouldn't care if MS dominates the market. They have a problem because MS abuses their monopoly to harm competitors.

Network effects....

[headkase]

The problem with bundling is that the vast majority of Windows users are non-technical mom-and-pop types. They use what comes with the machine and rarely install something new - they are usually even unaware that they have options. This leads to network effects where Microsoft software becomes the defacto standard simply through being first on the computer.

Re:Network effects....

[seriesrover]

But then the onus is on the non-technical mom-and-pop types to become aware that they have options, not MS. Firefox (as the obvious browser example) is a free download and one can use it for free.

Euro high

[stud9920]

If they hadn't appealed, they would have had to pay in 2004 EUR, which was a lot lower than it is today.

Where will the money go?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it doesn't go to fix the situation then it is pointless. The EU should spend the money building their own software industry up and set their own standards. The US would then be forced into a competitive market.

Re:Quel surprise!

[nschubach]

My biggest problem with his post is that it pins a button on all Americans (in some people's view) that says we back Microsoft because they are an American based company. In fact, I despise Microsoft for all the reasons listed in this case and hopefully they can get something to actually occur out of all this.

EU vs. USA - MS pending

[N3wsByt3]

While some may portray it as being an EU versus USA thing, it's actually much broader then that. To be sure; that sentiment *IS* there, and it certainly has played a role, especially concerning the popular support (the general EU IT-populace). It's doubtful however that the judges let themselves be swept away by any anti-americanism, however.

I think it's as much a 'global corporation which tries to screw you over'-sentiment than anything else, and that's why a lot of open source people (also in the USA) are rejoicing. But... that sentiment played little to no role in the ruling neither.

Basically, it's quite simple: they went against EU law and were dragging their feet to comply. No judge likes THAT.

Personally, I think they deserve a much higher penalty. The EU commision is way to soft on them - actually softer then on big EU corporations they tried to deal with in the past. And also, the 'provide an XP without the mediaplayer'-thing was outright stupid. *Everyone* with half a brain could see this would have no effect. First of all, it's too limited in scope: what about win-OSses other than XP, what about all those other applications other then the media player? Is the EU going to fight a 10 year struggle over every OS and application that comes along and has the same issues as was now decided on?

And apart from that: it's just suilly. Nobody is going to buy XP without mediaplayer if, for the same price, one can get one *with* it. By now, this obvious deduction has been proven right. No, what they should do is making it obliged that *every* OS MS makes gives the oportunity to install (or not) any application that comes with it (browser, media player, virusscanner, etc.). That way, you let consumers decide, and you give the opportunity to choose other applications instead of the windows-included-ones.

Such a ruling would have made better sense, coppled with opening up their code for compatibility and an even huger fine would make it clear to MS that no corporation is above the law, not even a giant USA one with lots of money and lawyers.

Re:It's not about fines, it's about Samba and free

[jimicus]

The ever-increasing push of products like Sharepoint means that I can realistically see Samba fileservers becoming less relevant as more company files are shared through such technology.

IOW, Microsoft will publish full specifications - just as soon as they're sure that doing so wouldn't cause anyone to choose Samba over Windows for a fileserver because hardly anyone's setting up a Windows box as a straight fileserver any more.

Re:sheeeit.

[DMiax]

But it was never on the shelves of any store I went into Yes there was, it was inside those strange boxes they call computers...

Excellent job, Neelie Kroes !!

[Alwin Henseler]

Personally I think this latest verdict will do little to nothing in the real word, and most of its value lies in the precedent it sets. Microsoft is a huge company, with deep pockets, good lawyers and used to dealing with lawsuits. If they get hammered, get fined, appeal, and lose again, then any company is subject to the same if they break anti-competitive rules. It also re-affirms that EU courts at least have the power to kick ass if need be. For all that, this verdict is very significant.

Other than that, I'd just like to congratulate mrs. Neelie Kroes for a long, hard job well done. She was always known in my country (the Netherlands) for being the exact opposite of a push-over (and many disliked her for that very reason), but where she is now, you need someone with exactly that personality.

So Neelie Kroes: we congratulate you, and bow to you! Bring out the champagne! (hey, if nothing else, pulling several 100 millions from Microsoft's pockets isn't a bad thing ;-)

Re:Quel surprise!

[Magada]

I hope you hold Microsoft stock - and lots of it. This kind of astroturfing is hard to do on just a paycheck - it's soul-draining work.

after said company complied with order after absurd order to change its practices. Untrue. Fines were demanded as a result of non-compliance. More fines were demanded as a result of MS not paying the initial fines and generally ignoring the proceedings. I should stop here, but I like to stop and feed the trolls once in a while.

Gee, no one seems to have bought XP-N Is that so? Do you have numbers? How many XP box licenses were sold in the EU in the relevant timeframe? Not many at all, I'd say. Was XP-N cheaper in any way? Shouldn't it have been, given that Media Player is valuable Microsoft IP?

Open the file formats? Here, have some source code. Not good enough? How about we just use XML? Still not good enough? I hope you don't mean Microsoft Office Open XML. If you do, I challenge you to create a feature-complete implementation of the standard - including the nice bits about "doing like word95 does it".
Also, it wasn't about just files, but also about moving them around (read: providing documentation so that Samba can stop sucking needlessly). No progress there.

But people still had the choice to install a number of alternatives Choice, you say. Have you ever uninstalled IE? Don't bother answering that one, it's called a rhetorical question.

And most chose not to. Do you have figures to back that up? Don't bother trotting out browser stats - though even those will show Firefox at a healthy 20% or thereabouts. Many of those running IE now have no choice in the matter - their corp is standardized on Windows.

Monopolies are not illegal

[Roy Ward]

Abusing a monopoly (anti-competitive behaviour) is illegal.

When a company has a monopoly, they get some extra rules to play by. Microsoft has not been following these.

Re:Monopolies are not illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct, the rules in question address using ones dominate power to unfairly enter and dominate other markets or to unfairly maintain its own monopoly. Monopolies are completely legal as long as they drive the economy and don't hurt it. While a lot of people are very emotional about anti-trust the laws themselves are very practical and consistent, even if not always properly used. The theory goes that competition is good for the economy and consumers. Lack of competition destroys the free market forces that create this balance since the monopolist no longer has any incentive to produce goods in a less expensive and more efficient ways. However in some markets monopolies actually are better than nothing or represent the only viable way for that market to succeed. We don't want to punish a company for being successful or we would have no successful companies. The problem comes down when a monopoly then tries to enter and dominate another already functioning free market using its monopoly position in another market. Also using unfair trade practices to prevent others from entering a market such as bundling, dumping and refusing to let its own partners do business with competitors on fear of losing the monopolies business which often times would be ruinous for vendors. The theory there is that if a market is to grow you must allow it to grow and monopolies that restrict it are hurting the overall economy, even if it looks like they themselves are successful. Look at IBM. They were once a monopoly but now they make more money in the computer industry even if they are no longer the dominate power. Conversely when a market is a niche or too expensive to keep running in the face of competition (look at the current state of satellite radio where everyone is bleeding red) monopolies may be a much better option if they can grow the market or at least make it profitable (if a market is just not viable then it shouldn't exist). So when people get emotional and believe anti-trust is about sticking it to a company or on the flip side when they believe it is a socialist idea, it really is all about straight forward capitalism and making more money, all be it making sure that money is spread around a bit more. There is no conflict of agendas there even if the rules themselves form a complicated system.

Microsoft has the dumbest lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft must have the dumbest lawyers. There has always been a media player since Windows 3.0. Admittedly it could only play .avi & .wav files and CD's but now Windows Media Player has evolved to support new encoding formats and streaming media. Now EU the says Microsoft can't include a media player with Windows. In Windows 95, Microsoft included the setup options for other file & print services, namely Novell Netware and Sun PC-NFS. Those vendors refused to support newer versions of Windows on the date that the new versions released so it was impossible for Microsoft to include the setup options for Novell Netware and Sun's PC-NFS in Windows 2000. So the EU says that Microsoft is abusing its dominant Windows client market share to extend its market share into Windows Servers. Microsoft extended the SMB protocol with things like enhanced security, integration with kerberos, encryption and a distributed file system to take advantage of features in Windows Server that were innovative and added value for customers. The SMB extensions did not prevent Samba file & print servers from serving Windows clients as the SMB protocol enables clients and servers to negotiate with one another based on their capabilities. Now the EU forces Microsoft to give it's IP to Samba so that they can copy the features present in Windows Server. Where is the innovation from Samba ? Active Directory is a multi-master, loosely coupled distributed directory service, that integrates LDAP, Kerberos and NTLM into a single easily deployed and managed service. Other LDAP and Kerberos implementations can interoperate with AD. Unlike other ldap directories that are not multi-master (OpenLDAP, Sun One), Active Directory has an innovative replication mechanism. Now the EU is forcing Microsoft to give it's IP to competitors such as Open LDAP and Sun so that they can replace Windows Server. All the innovations on Windows Server are designed to provide distinct benefits to customers. The EU ruling makes no sense whatsoever ! Micosoft should sack Brad Smith and his bunch of crony lawyers.

the battle has moved on: DRM & BBC iPlayer

[Phil Hands]

Sadly, and as one would expect, this all comes too late to make any difference to MediaPlayer's market share.

Perhaps the obligation to publish interfaces will bear fruit, but only if MS get appropriately punished in a timely manner when what they initially publish turns out to bear no relation to what is actually in 'doze, or does relate to it, but doesn't actually contain sufficient information to get the job done.

In the mean time, the BBC have handed control of their on-line content over to MS in the form of the BBC iPlayer, which relies on MS DRM. By the time that the EU notices that, they'll have killed off the currently vibrant set-top box market, and the bulk of them will be running some form of WinCE. At least that's the danger, which people a need to get excited about now if it's not to come to pass.

Re:Linux just recieved $690,000,000 in funding!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Linux and OSS is clearly a competitor in certain server and embedded systems markets, but the lack of interoperability harms it's adoption in other markets.
2. You're the only person claiming that the fine will somehow be used to fund Open Source development, but never let facts get in the way of a good troll.
3. Microsoft are not even being asked to provide source code. Not one line. Not even a single {. The only people claiming this are the Microsoft PR department. This would make you either an employee or a sucker. Which one are you?

Where did you get this information?

[golodh]

Could you please show us a link where we can verify>/i> your claim that "[...] Neelie Kroes (EU competition czar) saying that the desired outcome is for Microsoft to have 50% market share (or at least a significant reduction)"

Until you do, how are we to regard this claim as anything but random noise at best?

Re:Where did you get this information?

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume this is the source:

from Reuters: http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=2007-09-17T124601Z_01_L10398398_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESS-MICROSOFT-EU-DC.XML&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=&WTModLoc=InvArt-C1-ArticlePage1

A jubilant Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said the EU executive now expected to see a "significant drop" in Microsoft's overwhelming market share.

Asked how the Commission would assess the result, she told a news conference: "A market level of much less than 95 percent would be a way of measuring success ... You can't draw a line and say exactly 50 (percent) is correct, but a significant drop in market share is what we would like to see."

  - her spokesman later said that she was saying it would be a logical outcome, but her words are clear -- market share is how she would measure success.

Re:Where did you get this information?

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume this is the source:

from Reuters: http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=2007-09-17T124601Z_01_L10398398_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESS-MICROSOFT-EU-DC.XML&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=&WTModLoc=InvArt-C1-ArticlePage1

A jubilant Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said the EU executive now expected to see a "significant drop" in Microsoft's overwhelming market share.

Asked how the Commission would assess the result, she told a news conference: "A market level of much less than 95 percent would be a way of measuring success ... You can't draw a line and say exactly 50 (percent) is correct, but a significant drop in market share is what we would like to see."

  - her spokesman later said that she was saying it would be a logical outcome, but her words are clear -- market share is how she would measure success.

Sic semper tyrannus!! Thus it will always be!

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the free market, but Microsoft have abused us all for so long - they deserve every last bit of their fine. What have MS really contributed to the software industry save a measure of stability on a single platform? They need to morph into a radically different company that produces useful product or just piss off and die.

Media players

[Retron]

I just can't understand this. A few years back RealNetworks was whinging like fun, going on about MS being anticompetitive, etc.

Thing is...

In 1991 MS released Windows with Multimedia Extensions, which was Win 3.0 with a few multimedia apps bundled. In 1992 Media Player became part of Windows 3.1 and has remained there every since. Back in 1991, of course, there were no other media players out there.

Then 3 years later RealNetworks pops up and before long starts whinging. Considering MS had been "bundling" a media player since before RN was even thought of, how on Earth did RN have a leg to stand on? It just reeks of sour grapes to me.

And guess what members of Joe Public enough to get hold of Windows xxx N do? Yup, that's right, install WMP anyway as IE will prompt for it. Those who are tech-savvy enough to install an alternative browser/media player anyway will continue to do the same, so I really can't see what this achieves - apart from making some lawyers rich!

Goodness, I can just see it now - people moaning because Windows comes with a calculator, text editor and screensavers. Not to mention some games, I mean how unfair is that to those who write Solitaire clones for a living?!

Re:Media players

[Anonymous Coward]

n 1991 MS released Windows with Multimedia Extensions, which was Win 3.0 with a few multimedia apps bundled. In 1992 Media Player became part of Windows 3.1 and has remained there every since. Back in 1991, of course, there were no other media players out there.

Actually, I recall several media players for DOS, prior to MS MP. Usually, they came bundled with either a sound card (for music) or a CD-ROM (for multimedia). In any case, these certainly predated MP.

From the way the article reads...

[SCHecklerX]

...couldn't M$ simply price a version of windows without the media player higher than the version with it?

This seems like a typical tactic they would employ to maintain their dominance and squeeze out competition.

Re:From the way the article reads...

[DaveV1.0]

The problem MS has is that it claimed in U.S. court and in front of Congress that it could not remove WMP or IE from Windows because they were so tightly integrated.

If it complies with the EU, it could be charged with perjury here in the U.S. and it could also have some interesting effects as it might cause a new browser lawsuit.

Re:From the way the article reads...

[SEMW]

The problem MS has is that it claimed in U.S. court and in front of Congress that it could not remove WMP or IE from Windows because they were so tightly integrated. If it complies with the EU, it could be charged with perjury here in the U.S. and it could also have some interesting effects as it might cause a new browser lawsuit. No. Two different things. The US suit was about IE, not WMP; IE was what Microsoft claimed was too tightly integrated into the OS. The EU suit was the one that was (among other things) about WMP, and MS *did* make an edition of Windows without WMP in back in 2004. (It was sold for the same price as regular Windows, and IIRC, it sold something like seven copies in total worldwide. Go figure.)

Wait...

[WED Fan]

Wait, I thought there were alternative OS's capable of kicking MS butt. I thought it was just blazing on replacing Windows? Or, is it?

Re:Wait...

[Wowsers]

There are alternatives to Microsoft Windows, but you have to factor in the following two problems;

1. The consumer is lazy and ignorant. If you have Windows installed (or pre-installed), then the consumer thinks about upgrading and just buys Microsoft again because they cannot be bothered to learn a slightly different way of doing things. (Or might not even know of an alternative OS).

2. Whilst Linux does not have the top killer apps like Photoshop, Adobe Premier or games, it is most certainly good enough for regular consumers to use now. Same goes for the Apple Mac.

If the developers actually bothered to write their heavyweight applications for Linux then I'm sure not everything would be going Microsoft's way, especially as Linux costs $0 versus Vista's who knows how many insane $ depending on which version you buy, let alone the implications of DRM and UNtrusted computing.

Re:Wait...

[WED Fan]

So, Microsoft is being punished because the consumer is lazy and the "other" OS doesn't have killer applications?

Re:Wait...

[LordVader717]

Well, you could build upon Microsoft's often exclusive anti-competitive deals with computer retailers, or the lock-in practices etc. that this discussion is all about.

Good news but...

[Fenice]

I think they will just compensate by raising the prices of their products in EU?

Re:Good news but...

[bvimo]

Isn't that good news? It'll make the free operating systems even better value.

Will Apple raise the cost of Leopard or OSXI?

Re:Good news but...

[Fenice]

I dunno... All people I known do not really care about price since they're pirating Windows or worse, do not see it's price, obtaining it shipped with their computer...

Do not misundertand me : I'm really happy that, at last, MS get what it merits. I just feel that it is not a big victory in the sense where I fear that the only loosers will be the mass which bindly continue to buy MS products.

But I hope to be wrong and that will help people to shift to other OSes :)

What does this actually mean?

[jonwil]

Does this mean that Microsoft has to let free software use its network protocols and data formats?
Or can Microsoft continue with the status quo and lock free software out? (i.e. the "Microsoft Communications Protocol Program" which is great if you are IBM wanting to make your mainframes talk to the Windows machines in the network but not so great if you are Samba wanting to make a solution that lets you replace a Windows active directory server with a linux machine)

Re:Linux just recieved $690,000,000 in funding!!!

[DaveV1.0]

Consider the following about computer users:

1. most can not properly operate Windows
   
2. many are easily duped by obvious scams
   
3. many can not be bothered to read the manual
   
4. many refuse to accept the fact that any problem they experience could possibly be caused something they did or did not do
   
5. many do not know or understand the terms used to describe computer power, confusing memory, storage and speed ratings.
   
6. some can't even cut and paste between applications
   
   1. 
      Yes, GNU/Linux really is so bad that it can't be considered an option. It is simple fact is that no Linux distribution is actually designed for the average user. The developers and distributors of Linux expect people to have a certain level of skill, knowledge, competence, and devotion which is beyond most users.

What about Apple?

[Pap22]

Does Apply not bundle a media player with OSX? Do they not bundle a browser? Are they open to 3rd parties asking them to bundle their competiting products with OSX? Of course not. Why is Apple the darling of the tech world and Microsoft the beast, when I observe Apple doing the same anti-competitive practices (e.g. iTunes + iPod = iProfit).

Disclaimer: I use WinXP but am switching to Ubuntu next month. I am also an economics major so I sympathize with companies who try to make money.

Re:What about Apple?

[Verte]

As an economics major, then, you should realise that the problem is leveraging a monopoly in one market to create one in another market. I'm not sure exactly what monopoly you're suggesting Apply used to force their way into the pmp & digital music market. It's not like you can't use other stores to buy music for your iSnod. iTunes do not own the digital music distribution market either.

Re:What about Apple?

[Pap22]

I meant that when you buy music at iTunes, Apple allows you to transfer the music to iPods, but not to portable music players made by any other company. If that isn't anti-competitive, then I don't know what is.

The fact that some music is also offered DRM-free at a higher price hardly makes it OK. After all, Windows Media player is offered free, and 3rd party media players are offered free, and yet MS got fined for it anyway.

Re:What about Apple?

[seriesrover]

And by the same token its not like you can't put Linux or download FF to replace MS too - thats the parents point.

Re:What about Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, Windows Media player is offered free...

I seriously doubt that you are an economics major.

Re:What about Apple?

[NoOneInParticular]

Again, in what market does Apple hold a monopoly that they are using as a lever?

Re:What about Apple?

[Pap22]

If a practice is considered acceptable for any given company in perfect competition, then the same move by a company in an oligopoly should be considered acceptable, too.

Re:What about Apple?

[Verte]

But is your position that Apple are leveraging some sort of monopoly position with the iTunes store to sell more iPods? I'll grant that the iPod has been shameless lock-in wise, but I think it's too early to start screaming monopoly.

uneven trade

[wonkavader]

If the EU is going to impose sanctions on Microsoft like this, and we are not, then this means that there is essentially a $690 million trade restriction on Microsoft. For Microsoft to behave the same way in the EU that it behaves here, they need to pay a fee of $690 million.

That smacks of protectionism, and we have to retaliate.

Let's charge Microsoft $690 million to behave that way in the US.

Re:uneven trade

[MrMr]

I guess Microsoft has already paid roughly the same amount in bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H campaign donations to get the penalty dropped in the US.

Re:uneven trade

[Anonymous Coward]

Heard in a Richmond office....

Oh dear, the price of doing business in the EU just went up by $690m....

and the price of doing business in the US just went up by a similar amount...

Well, I suppose the price of Windows had better go up by 10$ a box, to cover that....

Re:uneven trade

[pandrijeczko]

Well, I suppose the price of Windows had better go up by 10$ a box, to cover that....

And that hurts precisely who on Slashdot? The 75% that run Linux? The 0.0001% that use Macs? Or the 24.9999% that have copied versions of Windows?

It's ironic choice of car analogy

[EMB Numbers]

It's ironic that you chose your particular car analogy, because there was a famous USA court ruling that car manufactures could not artificially restrict the ability of third parties to install car radios not supplied by the car manufacturer. USA auto manufacturers tried to force customers to buy radios exclusively from the car manufacturer by using non-standard electrical connections and deliberately restrictive physical constraints. Then the car manufacturers claimed that their physical constraints and connector designs were protected intellectual property.

The fight continues to this day: See the "Right to Repair" act. http://www.aftermarket.org/Government/Government.asp

Re:It's ironic choice of car analogy

[yorugua]

because there was a famous USA court ruling that car manufactures could not artificially restrict the ability of third parties

That's rather interesting, because I've been said from the Peugeot 307 sellers here (I own a 306) that if I were to change the radio of a 307, I would loose the (or some of the) warranties on the car. Guess our european law-abiding-corporate-abuse-killers overlords might have problems eating parts of their own cooking :-).

Re:It's ironic choice of car analogy

[MORB]

Maybe it's only the case if you change it yourself instead of having a Peugeot agreed service shop install it for you?

I believe that's how it work with Renault, at least.

Re:It's ironic choice of car analogy

[Carewolf]

If you were actually IN Europe such a statement would be groundless, and you could change the radio without fear of loosing warranty. Sorry for screwing you, but you either made the silly rules in your country, or listened to lying salesman.

Better solution?

[WhiteWolf666]

600 million euros is a good start, but there's a better solution if the EC wants to solve the MS monopoly (and yes, i know that the decision equires documented protocols).

It's simple; the EC should require that a certain (large) percentage of government computers should run alternate OSes. Microsoft shall be required to supply all docs needed for vendors to create interoperability. The power of the government purchasing vastly exceeds the power of fines.

Re:Better solution?

[doctormetal]

It's simple; the EC should require that a certain (large) percentage of government computers should run alternate OSes. This statement is totally stupid. Just use the correct tool for the job you have to do.
Sometimes that may be microsoft software, sometimes not.

First look at the problem that needs to be solved then find the correct solution for it.
Do not start with a solution and look how it can solve your problem. Mostly it wont work well.

Re:Better solution?

[WhiteWolf666]

You're looking at this wrong.

The problem is that Microsoft prevents the commodization of software products through abusive monopoly practices and proprietary protocols.

That's the "issue" the EC is trying to fix.

Rather than legislating compatibility while MS laughs at the EC, it makes more sense to commit the EC to making substantial purchases of competitors prodcuts, using government fiat to procure protocol documentation in order for the competition to build in this interoperability.

The goal here is not to fnd the best solution given the current market which has been contorted by microsofts monopoly (this is not a matter for debate, both the us and eu have found this to be true). The goal is insure a acompetitive market in which there are multiple vendors producing interoperable, commodity software.

Re:Better solution?

[shentino]

Heh, funny you should mention that. I heard from a news channel that the feds already dropped MSFT as a supplier owing to problems with vista.

Re:The problem with Capitalism is..

[Anonymous Coward]

that it's a straight battle to the death with no room for ethics. Communism is all ethics and no competition.

In the lawn watering example, the straight Capitalist answer would be to raise the fine on the rich water-waster. At some point, the fine will get more expensive than bribing the local government. So at that stage, our rich water-waster will simply pay off the local mayor, and keep watering.

Don't laugh - this is what actually happens in most 'Capitalist' countries I know about. Most 'Communist' ones as well, come to that....

This is taking a very jaded view

[golodh]

First of all, the verdict from the EU court isn't just about money.

That court just upheld the EU commission's view that Microsoft violated EU fair competition laws. It *publicly* told Microsoft that it was dead wrong in its views that it had (a) not violated fair-competition laws, and (b) that it had done enough to comply with the EU Commission's demand for interoperability information.

No international company (like Microsoft) can afford to shrug that off. Why? Because *every* single government out there now has a template with which they can credibly find Microsoft guilty of unfair competition in their own jurisdiction, *and* demand the inter-operability information that the EU is demanding. Don't think that Microsoft will be concerned? Think again.

In addition, Microsoft just received a court order to comply with the demands of the EU commission to supply third parties with the information they need to achieve interoperability. The longer Microsoft remains non-compliant with this order, the longer it will accumulate fines. To the tune of 10%-15% of its revenues. What company in the world can ignore that? If Microsoft's management were to try and ignore this, and continue to accumulate fines, they can be held liable to shareholders in the US. What would *you* do if you were the person responsible at Microsoft? Risk being sued for mismanagement by angry shareholders and then try to argue that it was in the best interests of the company and the shareholders to loose 10%-15% of its annual revenues in fines rather than to allow competitors a level playing field? Really?

Last but not least ... I really can't believe the contempt with which you seem to view that a $600 mln fine, even from the point of view of Microsoft. Loosing that amount in a genuinely risky investment is part of the cost of doing business, and presumably your investment had commensurate payoff prospects. On the other hand, loosing it by incurring (unnecessary) fines is just abysmal management. Even more so if youy stand to loose that kind of money *every year*. Microsoft didn't get to where it is now by holding that kind of money in contempt.

Personally I think that Microsoft will now, as a matter of priority, make interoperability information available in a form that is genuinely usable to anyone who wants to interface with or provide its Open Directory services.

Chinese Takeout

[sanityonleave]

Okay, to clarify, I'm not a fan of M$. They obviously have been involved in anti-competitive practices in the past, and I don't doubt that if they get the chance to use their market dominance to thwart competition again, they'll do it. However, there's a bigger issue than that involved; namely, the EU regulatory commission has an incredible anti-American bias. Basically, it's oldschool nationalist protectionism.

Does anyone even pay attention to Airbus vs. Boeing? The EU complained vehemently at the relatively mild import taxes leveled towards Airbus in the United States, while Boeing has had to deal with extraordinary protectionist import tariffs for years, as well as the fact that Airbus was SUBSIDIZED by the EU to the tune of several BILLION dollars. Micro$haft is anti-competitive for bundling its software package together in an OS, yet it's not anticompetitive for the EU to level huge (as much as 60% in some cases) import tariffs on Boeing while subsidizing Airbus for billions of Euro? And then they had the gall to complain about US tariffs? Come on, folks. Let's not let the utter hatred of M$ get in the way of seeing that this is more international politics at work than anything.

The EU and the Euro were created to fight the United States' financial power and the US dollar's financial power, respectively. The Euro has done remarkably well against the dollar except for a brief period right after its inception, and the EU's market power continues to grow. The fact is, though, they're not satisfied with their increasing market power; the EU has every intention of making it very difficult for American companies to hold substantial market share in Western Europe. It's the politics, ladies and gentlemen, not the monopoly.

How can you folks not smell the rat? It's been decaying for weeks in the vents, the whole house smells like death, and you guys are concerned that someone left the chinese takeout in the trash. Faites attention, s'il vous plait.

Re:Chinese Takeout

[ch0ad]

the EU is not a business, it's a government. so i would say it's not so bad securing jobs and wealth for all the involved countries of the EU, as it is securing money for yourself as a business.

Re:Chinese Takeout

[RageOfReason]

The EU and the Euro were created to fight the United States' financial power and the US dollar's financial power, respectively
Actually the EU was formed to created an integrated political and economic space to prevent future European wars (by creating prosperity and roughly equal wealth amongst nations). The Euro was created to reduce trans-border costs, improve European mobility, increase trade between member states and, yes, to present the US dollar with a competitor (in which is has been very successful).

Does anyone even pay attention to Airbus vs. Boeing?
Yes the WTO does. It's the largest case the WTO has ever dealt with. It was the EU that brought the complaint to the WTO. Presumably they feel they have a winnable case.

The old "EU xxx has an incredible anti-American bias" is just a flight of fancy.

Re:Chinese Takeout

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. The judgment is not about politics.

Politics now enters the scene, erm, *behind the scenes* as the US government tells the EU commission how it would be in the EU's best interest to provide some cop-out for Microsoft. For example, to avoid tolls being slapped onto EU exports. Or to avoid an invasion, once the troops become available for deployment elsewhere.

Ob: Simpsons

[ConceptJunkie]

This reminds me of when the SNPP is fined for safety violations and Mr. Burns pays the $3 million out of his pocket. "And I'll take that statue of Justice out front too."

Just the price of doing business as a latter-day robber baron. This might affect MS's bottom-line in a non-trivial way, but it won't affect their anti-competitive behavior or ill-gained market dominance. The saddest thing is that MS is clearly afraid to compete on merit. I guess they don't believe their products are superior either.

11 figures in the bank, you'd think they could afford to make decent products, but I keep forgetting: Making decent products is no longer part of their business plan.

Re:Ob: Simpsons

[miffo.swe]

"I guess they don't believe their products are superior either." Well, after i have had the "privelige" to work with Microsoft products recently i can understand their fear. Before i mostly worked with Linux and was used to its very detailed logging facilities, the transparacy of the system and the extremely good documentation and free support all over the internet. Windows still cant log anything more detailed than "Event ID 1006 £@..324...234.23.434". Its logging capabilities is not up to par with anything else. If Microsoft hasnt released a KB explaining in detail why something dont work you are really out of luck finding any advanced errors by yourself and are left to expensive support contracts to fix bugs and other errors in the product. The Windows system is a complete blackbox where you seldom can find out why, how or when something works or not. The various courses i have taken in windows have all just explained how things should work, not a single word is about what to do when it doesnt. Its like there is some kind of denial that things can go wrong. The most comon fix i have seen so far is reinstall. Mouse dont work, reinstall the driver. Service dont work, reinstall service and so on. Im used to identify the problem in detail, find a solution and implementing the solution, not reinstalling and not knowing wtf happened at all. Documentation for deeper parts of Windows is abysmal to someone used to all the documentation, all the forums, the ability to have direct contact with developers and to file bugs towards the developers. I havent worked on Windows servers much since NT but i found Windows2003 not to be that much progress. Every friggin advanced setting is done in some obscure place in the registry, consists of some hex value and are impossible to use if you dont know its there and knows exactly what various hex values does. Frankly i was really surprised since every MS shill out there always brag about how easy Windows is and how well it works. I took it as a challenge and was really not hostile towards Windows 2003 in the start. I honestly thought it would be very easy, stable and efficient to manage. PR and reality turned out to differ much more than i thought. If Microsoft cant do better with their army of developers, their bottomless coffins, their monopoly and blind obidience from their partners they are totally screwed once they get level competition to fight against.

Sign of pragmatism?

[mattr]

FWIW, in Yahoo's "Maboo" Japanese Internet cafe chain yesterday I noted they stopped including MS Office and instead their computers all feature OpenOffice.org icons for the OOo apps prominently on the desktop with a big circle around them. This from probably the No. 1 or 2 hugest pro-MS country in the world. Maboo is cheap among Internet cafes, although a more upscale and expensive chain (aprecio) uses MS. It is a dollars per hour difference.

Re:Linux just recieved $690,000,000 in funding!!!

[Nymz]

I agree with each of your observations, but what conclusion are you trying to propose? That I should stop expecting people to drop Windows (and choose GNU/Linux) because they're too stupid and lazy?

If free software projects don't get that $690,000,000 then all I see is a bunch of lawyers getting rich, and citizens getting zip.

Explain your analogy

[everphilski]

No customer would buy a Samsung TV that can play only Samsung DVD player. But why these corporations don't demand such compatibility?

Doesn't make sense to me. I'm using Firefox on Windows. I use WinSCP. I use other free and open source tools on a Microsoft platform. I could be using OpenOffice, but I prefer Office 2003.

At a former employer, I worked on authenticating Linux boxes to a Win2k3 domain

So pray tell, how does your analogy work?

Re:Explain your analogy

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

You work with MS-Office and my secretary uses OpenOffice. Complete and perfect exchange of documents possible? Why the file formats keep changing in MSFT? Why it works extra hard to make sure other systems don't interoperate with it? Why is it possible to mount Unix/Linux filesystems easily as network shares in a PC but it is practically impossible to mount a PC file system in Linux? Why can't a dual boot pc read/write partitions that can be used by the "other" system? Why can't MSFT and Linux produce a common ext3/ntfs file system read/write by both? Why can't email/calender applications of linux universe and windows universe can't interoperate? It is exactly same as Samsung TV refusing to play anything other than a Samsung DVD player. Customers would reject it immediately. Corporate suits buy and install and switch over to MSFT exchange server and then run on the upgrade treadmill all their lives. Why?

Re:Explain your analogy

[everphilski]

You work with MS-Office and my secretary uses OpenOffice. Complete and perfect exchange of documents possible?

Ah, but this ruling has nothing to do with that. This ruling has to do with bundling media players and browsers with the OS, things which you can choose to replace with things like VLC and Firefox. Please try and stay on topic with your next response.

Why is it possible to mount Unix/Linux filesystems easily as network shares in a PC but it is practically impossible to mount a PC file system in Linux? Why can't a dual boot pc read/write partitions that can be used by the "other" system?

I have a NTFS fileshare mounted in my dual boot FC4/WinXP x64 computer at home, works just fine. What problems do you encounter? Tried NTFS-3G?

Why can't MSFT and Linux produce a common ext3/ntfs file system read/write by both?

Pick one. There are NTFS drivers for Linux and ext3 drivers for Windows. I've used both with (as Borat would say) "Great Success!!"

It is exactly same as Samsung TV refusing to play anything other than a Samsung DVD player. Customers would reject it immediately. Corporate suits buy and install and switch over to MSFT exchange server and then run on the upgrade treadmill all their lives. Why?

Because Exchange integrates so damn nice with Outlook, an email/calendar/tasking program, and also integrates with SharePoint, a web-based project management tool. That's one big problem with Linux software I've encountered, lack of integration. Please, show me an email suite that integrates with calendar, and integrates with my project management tools, and then again with my word software so if I need to do a mass mailing I can pick a corporate mailing list and send against it? That's why. Ease of use.

And your analogy is still crap. Think about it and get back to me.

Re:Explain your analogy

[NoOneInParticular]

This ruling has to do with bundling media players and browsers with the OS, things which you can choose to replace with things like VLC and Firefox.

This ruling has as much to do with bundling media players as Al Capone's detention had to do with tax evasion. Okay, it has slightly more to do with it than that. The windows media player is not the problem, the wmv format is. If MS had its way, the media player would give it a monopoly in the media format market, due to the player becoming the de facto standard (due to windows being a monopoly). Once wmv is ubiquitous, it's simply a matter of closing down VLC and Firefox based on the patents on wmv, and streaming media could only be run by the grace of Microsoft.

Re:Explain your analogy

[MightyMartian]

Because Exchange integrates so damn nice with Outlook, an email/calendar/tasking program, and also integrates with SharePoint, a web-based project management tool. That's one big problem with Linux software I've encountered, lack of integration. Please, show me an email suite that integrates with calendar, and integrates with my project management tools, and then again with my word software so if I need to do a mass mailing I can pick a corporate mailing list and send against it? That's why. Ease of use.

It's the one thing that forces me to keep maintaining Windows servers, sadly. No other groupware is really as good as Exchange.

But let's be clear here. There is nothing easy about administering Exchange. It is a horrible, horrible pile of shit, difficult to install, difficult to maintain and an inglorious, ugly resource hog, made only worse by Outlook, an equally unsavory client app. The only thing going for it is that the few competitors out there are worse.

I would give my eye-teeth for an open source integrated calendar/scheduler/address book/email server and app with full sharing that wasn't ten times harder to install than that unforgivable abortion known as Exchange/Outlook. Hell, stick with the Outlook but giving me a good solid connector to this mythical groupware server that was as reliable as Exchange.

If someone could bundle that with OpenOffice, I could probably walk into my manager's office tomorrow and say "We're moving away from Windows servers." I have no illusions about putting anything other than Windows on the desktop, of course. We're aways away from that.

Re:Quel surprise!

[everphilski]

Is that so? Do you have numbers? How many XP box licenses were sold in the EU in the relevant timeframe? Not many at all, I'd say. Was XP-N cheaper in any way? Shouldn't it have been, given that Media Player is valuable Microsoft IP?

This "designed by committee" approach to product development spawned one of the lowest-selling products ever released by the software giant, with the new XP N accounting for only 0.005 percent of all XP sales in Europe.

Choice, you say. Have you ever uninstalled IE? Don't bother answering that one, it's called a rhetorical question.

You don't have to uninstall it to have choice. Install an alternative, use it.

Re:Linux just recieved $690,000,000 in funding!!!

[DaveV1.0]

I propose that you stop expecting people to do something against what they believe is in their best interest.
I propose that you start expecting the GNU/Linux developers and the distro developers to make Linux more user friendly.

You will draw more flies with honey than vinegar.

A great day for freedom

[Andrei D]

Yeah, I know that most consider that it's too little, too late, but I feel like listening to Pink Floyd - A great day for freedom. It seems appropriate for this moment...

On the day the wall came down
They threw the locks onto the ground
And with glasses high we raised a cry for freedom had arrived
On the day the wall came down
The Ship of Fools had finally ran aground
Promises lit up the night like paper doves in flight
I dreamed you had left my side
No warmth, not even pride remained
And even though you needed me
It was clear that I could not do a thing for you
...
I woke to the sound of drums
The music played, the morning sun streamed in
I turned and I looked at you
And all but the bitter residues slipped away...slipped away

Re:A great day for freedom

[MightyMartian]

Ug, schlock from post-Waters Floyd.

Re:Quel surprise!

[Verte]

No one is pointing a finger at you, nor the ignorant majority that exists in absolutely every country, not just the USA, because the majority of people just don't care as long as they have their big screens, fast food, and make it to the game on Saturday. It's the government we're looking at- the kind of people who have such amazing power for good, but use it in selfishness. No one is blaming you any more than they are blaming Richard Stallman. [No doubt there will be ONE person to point the finger in that direction ;)]

Ok,

[golodh]

Ok, found the link.

An independent link seems to be: http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070917/3/37zv8.html

The quote from Neelie Kroes really is extremely dubious at first sight, but the follow-up comment by her spokesman makes more sense. From what I've read on her here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neelie_Kroes), the last thing one could say of mrs. Kroes is that she is a socialist, or even a crypto-socialist who delights in bashing successful companies.

I suspect that this comment is based on ordinary econometric marketshare modelling, which predicts marketshare as a function of explanatory variables that define economic utility ... such as price, performance, and connectivity. Extreme deviations between model prediction and actual marketshare could be viewed as a possible indication that the company in question is practising unfair competition (*not* as evidence of course, note the reservations I'm building in), and might serve as an additional reason to investigate that company if complaints are received. Which is what happened.

In this case I guess that what is meant is that econometric models predict marketshares around 50% in a genuinely free market, which would emerge after Microsoft complies with the order to provide interoperability information (without its current chicanery in the form of minimise-information-and-maximise-pagecount and it's license which is calculated to cut off Open Source competitors), which in turn would explain the comment.

I'm speculating of course, but I think this a more likely interpretation that gratuitous Microsoft-bashing on part mrs. Neelie Kroes.

Re:Ok,

[Watson Ladd]

She's in the VVD. Why would socialist be in a major right-wing party instead of the PvA or the GL?

Re:sheeeit.

[ibbo]

Touchy touchy.

Seems those damned Eurocrats managed to do what the USA could not. And thats bring and win a case against the mighting Redmond. Something that the US tried to do itself and almost succeeded in doing and then, oh ah yes new president and the case fell flat. Its about time MS were dropped a few pegs and its more than time that people had real choice instead of been landed with MS software by default.

My guess is if MS was a European company you would be dancing a jig in the street.

Re:Linux just recieved $690,000,000 in funding!!!

[Nymz]

"I propose that you stop expecting people to do something against what they believe is in their best interest."
Ok, if I stop expecting people to drop Windows, could I ask them to stop sueing the Windows they don't want to drop?

"I propose that you start expecting the GNU/Linux developers and the distro developers to make Linux more user friendly."
Ok, if I continue my efforts to make GNUs more user friendly, could I ask article writers to not proclaim that GNU/Linux isn't even good enough to be considered an option. (I'm very sensitive)

"You will draw more flies with honey than vinegar."
I agree completely, thanks for not flaming me, I appreciate the debate.

Convicted = costly

[proton]

assuming the conviction sticks after 20 more years of appeals, this opens the door wide open for others to claim damages for microsofts practises. anyone even slightly suffering by their practises can just point at this one and say 'look they were convicted, now give me my share'. in that sense whatever damages they get in this initial judgement should be trivial compared to the following lawsuits of anyone with a european branch.

Go Europe!

[Anonymous Coward]

great work!

You got it wrong

[WindBourne]

The average customer does not care because they do not understand the value of something. They know that MS costs money, and much of OSS is beer free (they ignore that support costs money). They know that developers develop to MS. Get a large percentage of developers to move to none windows, and then the customers will move. And they will move.

And as a OSS developer, I say Good luck

Never mind the justice, what are they going to do

[dammy]

Never mind the justice, what is the EU going to do with the cash? Do something positive with it or go into EU general fund for political wonks to spend on pet projects?

Fear the Ballmer!

[ardor]

I feel like a million chairs cried out then were silenced...

Re:Fear the Ballmer!

[jagdish]

I feel like a million chairs cried out then were silenced...
What are you, some kind of Jedi?

Wrong title

[Anonymous Coward]

"Microsoft Loses EU Anti-Trust Appeal"?

No, no, no...

"EU forces volume licensing rebate from Microsoft"

There, that's much more accurate.

Lets face it, governments fine Microsoft for contrived anti-trust or monopoly issues because governments are the only organisations that actually have to pay for MS products, everyone else has the option to just steal them.

It is so transparent to be laughable. I'm sure at this point Microsoft sales reps have been directed to take this into account when quoting products or services to governments and adjust prices accordingly.

Re:Quel surprise!

[Tom]

Surprise surprise, a European court decided to rob an American company of half a billion dollars, Language is a bitch if you can't use it properly. See "to rob" means "a: to deprive of something due, expected, or desired b: to withhold unjustly or injuriously" (merriam-webster). A court, being the place that finds on issues of just or unjust, doesn't "rob".

Yes, I know you didn't mean it literally, but only to evoke the emotion of injustice and pitty for the poor victim - which is exactly why I point it out. MS isn't a poor victim, but a legally convicted criminal - btw. in the US as much as in the EU.

after said company complied with order after absurd order to change its practices. The court says different. Last I checked, courts and not random /. users decide if a criminal complied with his probation conditions.

Citizen Gates

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Microsoft has lost its appeal against a record 497m euro fine imposed by the European Commission

Thatcher: Charles, I happen to know this little enterprise of yours cost you 497 million Euros last year.

Kane: Yes, Mr. Thatcher, I did lose 497 million Euros last year. I expect to lose 497 million Euros this year. I expect to lose 497 million Euros next year. You know what, Mr. Thatcher? At 497 milliion Euros a year, I'll have to close this place...in one hundred and twenty years.

(Cue horns: wah wah wah wah waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...)

Re:Linux just recieved $690,000,000 in funding!!!

[DaveV1.0]

"Ok, if I stop expecting people to drop Windows, could I ask them to stop sueing the Windows they don't want to drop?"

I don't think you should ask or expect people to stop suing MS. There is no conflict between wanting to use Windows and expecting better behavior from MS and not switching to something else like Linux. Not wanting to use Linux should not prevent one from suing MS just because one uses MS products. Kind of like saying if one is hurt in a store, one can not sue unless one stops shopping at that store even if that store is the only store that provides what one wants and/or needs.

"Ok, if I continue my efforts to make GNUs more user friendly, could I ask article writers to not proclaim that GNU/Linux isn't even good enough to be considered an option. (I'm very sensitive)"

I don't see it as saying Linux isn't good enough to be considered an option, but rather that it was considered an option and found wanting. And, that is true.

My whole position is that if GNU/Linux proponents want more people to switch to Linux distros, then they need to improve the user experience for the users who have problems using Windows let alone a something like Linux where one might have to use a command line or actually know something about the computer itself.

I am fairly certain that there is money to be from an alternative O/S to compete with Windows, but I don't see Linux being able to fulfill that role in the near future.

The Slahdot-watering down syndrome.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I agree that the fine constitute a mere pittance when MS's wealth is taken into consideration. Yeah I agree this is less than a minuscule dent in the armor. So do every slashdotter.

But to average Joe who doesn't know squat about computers, to computer-illiterate managers, bosses and other responsibles, this fine constitute an incomparably huge amount of cash which is bound to raise some eyebrows and make noses smell the fishy odour.

Anyone read the comments on that BBC article?

[kazade84]

Honestly, half the people commenting just seem to think that Microsoft is a happy happy fairy that blesses the worlds computers with magic pixie dust.

2 words. 'Illegal' 'Monopoly'

Re:Quel surprise!

[yorugua]

I wonder how much will the European governments, and Europe in general, buy from Microsoft in this fiscal year. I would like to know how much these 497M euros are, expressed as a % of the former figure, to see how much of a "discount" did they get. I don't mean this is bad, but we need to have a clear whole picture, to see if this has any chance of working.

Re:Never mind the justice, what are they going to

[Anonymous Coward]

or go into EU general fund for political wonks to spend on pet projects? Pet projects just like 9/11-jihad denial. Check out for yourself and count how many times the word islam appears: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/frattini/index_en.htm

A coward smelling pre-nazist uberstate.

Re:The good news is that.....

[Anonymous Coward]

BUY IKEA SHARES NOW

Okay, new rule

[GregPK]

Only buy Microsoft products an none of the crap that the competitors try to push out on me. The only reason the EU did this is because none of thier crap for developers could come out with something better. I hope Microsoft appeals this. Because by the time the appeals process comes out Apple will likely have taken a significant hold on the market and the EU will be going after them too. Why? Because they didn't think of it first and they want to profit from copying American ideas and work.

Re:Okay, new rule

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe they in the EU did the ethical thing - they did not push the OSes that they *did* create into the market with illegal practices?

Just a thought to counter your anti-EU reflex.

Re:Okay, new rule

[Anonymous Coward]

You do make yourself sound stupid. You know who the companies are that complain about MS's behaviour to the EU? *US* companies. But you think the EU is doing this to benefit their largely non-existent EU competitors. You'd probably be the sort to start a war about this based entirely on your distorted imagination. If you paid any attention at all you'd also know that the EU competition commission has repeatedly fined EU companies larger amounts that this. But I suppose such facts must be ignored as they get in the way of your pathetic whining 'EU is anti American' fantasies.

que?

[Toreo asesino]

Rubbish. Take a look at EU anti-trust cases, and you'll see there's plenty of home-grown cases too.

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/index/by_nr_75.html

We love you Americans really....let's kiss and make-up ok?

Airbus subsidy

[Anonymous Coward]

Boeing gets far more subsidy from the U.S. government than Airbus does from the EU, if you count the massively inflated revenue from military procurements.

Re:The problem with Capitalism is..

[Idaho]

In the lawn watering example, the straight Capitalist answer would be to raise the fine on the rich water-waster.

I agree with your point, though the straight Capitals answer would be to do nothing at all, eventually the supplies will drop (you run out of water) which means (given the same demand) that the price will increase, so people will *have* to stop wasting water at some point. It all sorts itself out in the end...the only thing is, probably too late (and lots of people might die, except for the very rich).

Btw. whether communism is "all ethics", errr...well....I'm sure you mean in theory? Just as long as you don't try it IRL? ;)

Sell or Buy?

[RageOfReason]

Sell MSFT, buy stock in high-end office chair manufactures.

Three Things To Consider in the ruling

[WillAffleckUW]

1. MSFT is no longer under watch - that portion is being lifted, so future actions may go undetected.

2. The ruling is under appeal.

and

3. MSFT is more concerned with China and other worldwide markets in the long term.

Re:Linux just recieved $690,000,000 in funding!!!

[BlueParrot]

While manually editing the registry to get Vista to properly clear the DHCP broadcast just so you can connect to the net is the epitome of being user friendly for joe-average?

My dad and sister spent 3 hours trying to get Vista to detect their wireless network before giving up and used the cat5e cable instead. I installed Ubuntu on my machine and it worked out of the box... Yea... windows is easy on newbes, Linux is not... blah blah blah... bullshit. If a non-techie gets trouble with a windows driver or piece of hardware they will not have a much easier time than on Linux. The only difference is that this is less likely to occur on Windows because their large market share and abuse of monopoly has caused many vendors to not support Linux. Seriously, 99% of problems users will have with Ubuntu is down to one of two things, lack of drivers or proprietary file formats. Guess who is doing their very best to ensure that this situation continues? You think it is coincidence windows' new media sub system essentially prohibits open source drivers?

This ruling aims to alleviate problems like this by preventing Microsoft from deliberately causing them.

Btw, if my mom can use Ubuntu anybody can. I'm talking about a woman who has failed to learn how to start a VHS cassette despite her family having had a VCR for 15 years.

This is regards to Win 98 right

[Anonymous Coward]

well then why don't we all just boycott Windows 98! that'll show em!

Oh right this is almost 10 years old.

MS = The New Euro Hitler

[Anonymous Coward]

Just pull all licenses and start suing everyone under the sun there to pay the fine.

See how they like THAT

AlonsEnfantDeLaPatria, Le Jour del Gloire Arrive

[Anonymous Coward]

And in Germany sing Die Wacht Am Rhein!

Protectionist? Who are they protecting then?

[surfingmarmot]

"Okay, to clarify, I'm not a fan of M$. They obviously have been involved in anti-competitive practices in the past, and I don't doubt that if they get the chance to use their market dominance to thwart competition again, they'll do it. However, there's a bigger issue than that involved; namely, the EU regulatory commission has an incredible anti-American bias. Basically, it's oldschool nationalist protectionism."

You dredge up the Boeing v. Airbus analogy. Okay, I'll bite. Please enlighten me as to which EU business the EU Commission is protecting? Sun? IBM? the other tech companies who filed friends of the court briefs? Ahem. Almost all are US companies. Your theory has no basis in fact whatsoever.

Re:Protectionist? Who are they protecting then?

[sanityonleave]

Valid point, there aren't any major European competitors for Microsoft at the moment. However, I dredged up Airbus v. Boeing not to show how the EU deals with anything resembling competition from American companies, but more to show that the EU regulatory commission is far from the impartial arbiter of justice that people seem to be touting it as. It's a political body more than it is a judicial body, which was the point of that analogy.

However, the suit doesn't just have to be to foster European competition -- anything that hurts a company which is obviously the favored child of the US government (after that joke handling of the antitrust case, who could doubt that) is considered beneficial to the EU. Don't believe the politics are that petty? Read the Airbus v. Boeing case.

By the way, I love the troll moderation on my original post (I have no idea if it was by surfingmarmot or not, just a general comment) since you disagreed with my ideas. Read the moderation guidelines, please.

Re:Protectionist? Who are they protecting then?

[NoOneInParticular]

If you actually paid attention to the EU competition commissioner's history, you might notice that many European companies have been fined much heavier than MS has been been. This is serious business, and the EU is very busy to clean up anti-competitive business inside the EU. This because the EU traditionally has been 'trust-country'. Comparatively, they've been pretty soft on Microsoft.

Airbus is a problem in its own right. Being subsidized by both the French and the German governments, they are practically immune from EU anti-competitive regulations for political reasons. However, Boeing is not a victim though. How much DoD money comes their way?

One of the few times....

[HermMunster]

One of the few times you will ever here me say this: Thank God.

I am so impressed that these people know how to evaluate the situation and understand the impact of what Microsoft's abuse has been doing to the whole industry. Microsoft is the most untrustworthy of all companies in the world. I can only compare my unhappiness with them to how unhappy I am with the current Presidency. At least the EU folks have a head on their shoulders and know how to assess the real facts. Microsoft has been convicted yet again and that conviction has been upheld. Now we wait for their ultimate appeal--which we know they will appeal again.

Those criminals at Microsoft are calling everyone else criminals. It is good to see their criminal nature exposed to the world.

Re:sheeeit.

[RightSaidFred99]

Small problem. Most people _want_ that MS software. And I see the laughable sarcasm the parent post used to deflect the legitimate criticism of XPN. I know that since you used "yadda yadda" and since your sentence was hilariously sarcastic I must be a fool to ask this, but I'm genuinely curious as to why you think anyone would want a version of XP with fewer features _other_ than socialist EU scum? Consumers certainly don't want to get less for their money. And the ones who know and care enough most certainly have plenty of choices for add-on software.

The EU doesn't understand that poor Microsoft.

[Futurepower(R)]

"Absolutely absurd."

Yes, yes, I agree with you. The EU doesn't understand poor Microsoft.

The EU thinks that Microsoft is a SOFTWARE company. Can you imagine that? Actually, Microsoft is an abuse company. Software is just a method of delivering abuse.

Abuse is Microsoft's core competency. If you accept that, then everything Microsoft does is entirely okay!

Okay, some of this may be an exaggeration for the purpose of joking, but maybe not.

How can anything that makes money be abuse? If someone is rich, they must be right, right?

Re:Quel surprise!

[RightSaidFred99]

Shh. Don't ruin his big finale of point by point blows to his mortal enemy, MS! Can't you see how rational and logical he was? Ahahaha. These anti-MS nerds take themselves so seriously. My favorite make-believe term they use is "convicted monopolist!". Can't you just see them getting all worked up and taking on a meaningful facial expression when they say it. Like a politician decrying pornography and telling people to (queue meaninful, concerned look) "think of the children".

The nerds and the competition have already lost. Normal people don't hate Microsoft. Only filthy, bitter, angry nerds and MS competitors hate Microsoft. That 4% of the population is never going to succeed against a juggernaut with that much money. They've already lost and they don't even have the common sense to understand that not only _wasn't_ their cause just, their cause was never a cause at all.

Re:Quel surprise!

[RightSaidFred99]

Ahahaha! Sweet! This guy changed the usual "convicted monopolist" to "legally convicted criminal!" And he even went beyond the usual laughable dramatics and put it in bold! Sweeeet! You, sir, are the rockingest angry, bitter nerd to post your dramatic outrage (with meaningful, concerned look on face at time of typing, I'm sure) I've seen post in the last few hours. Congratulations!

Criminal! Ahahaha. Rich. If only that word meant what you thought it did.

Your_school != Good, apparently ...

[beer_maker]

According to the Slashdot Gospel,

A monopoly (from the Greek language monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a product or service, in other words a firm that has no competitors in its industry. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.

I am sure 25% control of the market would give a company great ability to steer the market ... but it doesn't sound much like the above. OSX/Solaris/*nix fly in the face of "only one provider", and you're a braver man than I to claim there is a "lack of viable substitute goods" in the OS space in this particular venue. IMHO, anyway.

What about OS X + iTunes?

[Tatsh]

Actually, there were a lot of good comments, such as what this could mean for other companies too. For example, Apple obviously includes all these i apps with OS X, such as iTunes. And we all know how iTunes generally is known to only work with iPods (it does work with others, but Apple themselves will not tell people this). This ruling could mean that retail OS's from stores, and quite possibly OEM OS's (which are always modified by the manufacturer, such as the Dell crapware), have to be minimal, and that everything else is separate.

To be honest, I wish a law like this could be implemented. That way, no more crapware when I buy a new machine. Instead of having all this crapware installed, Dell and others could just put the software on the desktop in a folder with just setups. Then they could even put multiple types of software, such AVG and Avast, and let the user decide or even switch later. It would no longer be "wipe and reinstall" immediately upon reciving the machine to fully get rid of the crapware (after finding the drivers of course, which for XP is becoming a game lately). Essentially, it would now be, resize the Windows partition, and then use the rest for Linux, etc. Of course, I would still reinstall to get back XP nowadays.

If this means that Apple will have to unbundle a lot of its software in OS X in Europe, I could imagine them fighting that till they cannot any more. This is where MS and Apple can become friends again (but then of course MS would destroy them when they get the chance).

Regardless, Apple does NOT make it difficult to remove any of their software. You just simply move it to the wastebin and if you want it back you just put your relevant OS X CD in. In Windows, one of the ways is to make an nLite custom installation CD with it removed, and the other is to manually do it. Similar to removing IE (except 7 is a lot better at its standalone-ness now), you lose a lot of functionality either way, because these apps are "core" apps buried deep into the OS.

When Ubuntu ships with Dell, it comes with a complete set of useful software, but the fact is you can remove it, pretty simply, without breaking the system (hopefully). There are also many alternatives to almost every type of software (example KOffice vs OpenOffice). Does this mean that Dell cannot ship Ubuntu without stripping it of software like GIMP and Audacious, leaving the user to choose what to install? (Hopefully they can figure that out).

Personally, I do not mind if MS included WMP in Windows, as long as removal was easy. Right now it is not. The ruling should be that bundled software can be included, but it has to removed easily and it must remove ALL traces of itself. We all know how "good" the Norton uninstaller works.

Re:Quel surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

In communist countries it was quite common to convict people to death penalty for...well..opposing the regime? Being unconventional? This is called "legislated murder". In the case of Microsoft, it is legislated robbery. Nothing else.

To understand the number ...

[jc42]

a record 497m euro (£343m; $690m) fine

How many hours of MS profits does this correspond to?

Without knowing this, it's hard to get a feel for how strong a slap on the wrist this is going to be. (If MS ever actually pays it, of course.)

Also, out of curiosity, how does this number compare to MS's political campaign contributions over the past 10 or so years?

You're over reacting

[Almahtar]

What is new -- and alarming for anything potentially innovative or disruptive -- is Neelie Kroes (EU competition czar) saying that the desired outcome is for Microsoft to have 50% market share (or at least a significant reduction). That's putting the cart before the horse. What if Microsoft went open source and released a Vista UI based on a linux kernel -- would the EU still want Microsoft to have 50% market share and keep punishing them if they didn't? No, not for a second. What you're talking about is a conversational quote from one authority involved in the matter - it's not law, and shouldn't be interpreted as such. It's the (current) goal as stated by one man. That doesn't mean the goal wouldn't change if Microsoft's behavior changed. Don't take an idle quote and interpret it as if it was approved and applied law.

Given Microsoft's entire track record I approve of the goal of bringing them to 50% completely at the moment. If Microsoft ever proved to become a fair player, I would change my mind. They haven't, and they aren't. I want their market share down NOW, because it costs you and I a lot of money and progress. Anyone that thinks otherwise is probably missing a lot of information or self respect or both (or they work at/have share in Microsoft).

My school == Good, fortunately :)

[geekinaseat]

You had me worried for a bit there but I've found a reference http://www.blacks.veriovps.co.uk/content/3328.html although I must say according to Wikipedia's definition- I totally agree, I'm not about to claim that there are no viable alternatives!

Re:Quel surprise!

[Tom]

You should wipe the smug look off your face and check the laws. Quite a bit of what MS did (and does) is criminal in the meaning of the law.

Re:Quel surprise!

[Tom]

You can call it whatever you want the same way I can call the US president a monkey and the moon a big piece of cheese. But changing the labels on things does not change the things. I'll be the first to say that yes, a death penalty means killing someone. "Murder", however, is a slightly different term with a slightly different meaning. And yes, those slight differences are as important as the off-by-one errors that break your software if you shrug them off.

Re:Quel surprise!

[thepartyanimal]

What do you think the chances are that the woman who brought this case even knows what a media player is? shes about 150 years old.

Re:It's a start!

[Lord Bitman]

Anyone care to tell me what flame I'm supposedly baiting by pointing out that this ruling goes against all forms of logic?

MS leaving the EU market

[falconwolf]

Microsoft always has the option of withdrawing from the EU and then it won't be subject to their laws.

Sure MS could do that, however if the did not only would they loose the EU market they'd also loose a lot of the US market as well. Without interoperability businesses and other entities with locations in or that does transactions both the EU and the US would have to use a product that does offer interoperability. Also if MS were shut out of the EU other markets may follow suit and shut out MS as well.

Falcon

Re:MS leaving the EU market

[petermgreen]

more likely people would just grey import or pirate MS software in europe.

I need some clarification

[falconwolf]

Though I do wonder what level of fine it would take for Microsoft to really change it's way of doing things

50% of their cash, with a promise that you take the other half if they don't shape up by the deadline.

Unfortunately, you can't do that anymore. Liberals may not win any elections, but they sure won one part of the "small, powerless government" agenda, and it ain't the "small" one.

I need some clarification, when you use "liberal" are you using as it typically is used in the US with big government programs or are you using it in the context of Classical Liberalism that support small government? As with Libertarians Classical Liberals, which is what Libertarians are , are supportive of self-responsibility.

Falcon

Thomas Jefferson

[falconwolf]

I finally decided short of taxing 100% of wealth over about 10 million dollars (to keep us a jeffersonian democracy of many tiny wealthy people), that it just isn't going to happen. I'm beginning to think that the corporate structure is fundamentally flawed and will inevitably lead to aristocracy.

What's flawed is government's treatment of corporations. Like Thomas Jefferson warned of a Corporate Aristocracy has arisen which uses government for it's own advantage. Corporations were originally granted charters if and only if they served the public good. The first corporations to be chartered were the Dutch East India Company which the first multinational company, in the Netherlands and the Honorable East India Company in England in 1600 and 1602. They were granted corporate charters because of the need for limited liability and so that many small investors could pool their money together to make investments. Both companies were in risky businesses, shipping. A ship might sink or be attacked by pirates, and the company or ship owner was responsible for the loss of the cargo, the owner of the cargo had to be repaid for the loss. A small investor in a ship could lose not only what they invested in the ship but everything they owned. By chartering corporations investors were only liable for what they invested, if they bought stocks in a ship for $1000 and it sank the most they could loose is that $1000. Government has the power to revoke charters if a corporation no long does that however it's no longer enforced.

Falcon

Re:Thomas Jefferson

[mpe]

They were granted corporate charters because of the need for limited liability and so that many small investors could pool their money together to make investments.

Note that this "limited liability" was simply an investor thing.

Both companies were in risky businesses, shipping. A ship might sink or be attacked by pirates, and the company or ship owner was responsible for the loss of the cargo, the owner of the cargo had to be repaid for the loss. A small investor in a ship could lose not only what they invested in the ship but everything they owned.

This is an issue with Lloyds insurance, the liability of the insurance underwriters is effectivly unlimited.

By chartering corporations investors were only liable for what they invested, if they bought stocks in a ship for $1000 and it sank the most they could loose is that $1000.

At the time $100 might well be a lot for a "small investor", it might even be perfectly possible for a person to hold only one share/stock for $1.
Also nothing about this arrangement absolved a ship's master of their responsibilities. e.g. the crew were caught conspiring with pirates to have the cargo stolen then they'd be liable.

many people in US I know converted to Mac

[falconwolf]

this year

I'm one. The first new computer I got I got 10 years ago and it was a Windows PC. Since then I have used Windows almost exclusively. However because Microsoft has decided to treat me like a criminal, that's exactly what Activation and WGA/WPA are, I've switched. I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro I got several weeks ago. And about a year ago I bought a PC with Linux preinstalled which I'll setup as a server.

Vista is crap, and we want the ability to order our machines with XP.

You might but I don't want to use a PC with XP either. It is just as crappy as most any other OS MS has released. I have used XP and the first tyme I did it was on a brand new PC. The first tyme I booted up it froze on me. The only MS OS I didn't have a problem with was NT4.0. Then again as the PC I have with NT4 is an DEC Alpha I haven't used it much.

Falcon

1 more to go

[cavebison]

Apparently this is only the 2nd highest court in the EU.. so still a chance for an appeal.

Will MS give in or appeal? Bets are on!

A little clarification?

[Travoltus]

"Shut down" in this case, meaning Microsoft is BANNED from selling new copies of Windows to EU countries.

You can't shut down an international megacorporation, but you can treat them to a Boston Tea Party.

Re:A little clarification?

[Tom]

You can shut them down - at least the part that is in the EU - which is quite considerable. Last I checked, 13.000 jobs. That's not a small part.

Why such a little fine?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm serious. Why such a little fine. This is petty cash to a company like microsoft. They get more from Europe in 6 months than this fine cost. If the fine was 5 billion Euros, then I'd say 'ok, thats a fine fitting the crime', but this small sum? Really not anything to get into a sweat about.

Re:Quel surprise!

[Magada]

Where did that number come from? I don't know the guy who wrote the article you cite and he doesn't cite any sources. Also, was XP-N made available in significant numbers? How about cost and the other questions I raised?

You don't have to uninstall it to have choice. Install an alternative, use it. Really? I'd be happy to show you first hand why such "choice" really isn't, if you could just be so nice as to visit a certain webpage I could provide with a browser that's Java- or Flash-enabled. There are simple ways to call explorer.exe from within another browser; there's even a Firefox extension that does just that.

Lloyds of London

[falconwolf]

This is an issue with Lloyds insurance, the liability of the insurance underwriters is effectivly unlimited.

Lloyds of London was established in 1688, more than 80 years after both East India companies were incorporated. Swiss Re, the world's largest reinsurer, was established in 1862 60 years after the East India companies. And as for liability, just as with other insurance policies, reinsurers are only liable for the amount covered in the policy. Also reinsurers buy insurance as well.

At the time $100 might well be a lot for a "small investor", it might even be perfectly possible for a person to hold only one share/stock for $1.

I just used "$1000" as an example, dollars didn't even exist then. Even the first Swiss frank dates from 1798. It's only been recently that there has been standard widely used money for buying or trading. Before 1798 cantons in Switzerland had their own money, as did most other places. And yes, even now stocks can be bought cheaply, the penny stocks. Capable, and maybe lucky, investors can make a fortune buying these stocks. Most don't amount to much, however most stocks don't have an IPO like Google did. A company that issues low priced stocks can come out with a blockbuster. Or it could be bought out by a bigger business.

Falcon

Your memory == Good [ :^)

[beer_maker]

Yes, exactly as you said, although it appears that definition applies only on that side of the Pond:

In the UK {emphasis added}, since it is market dominance which poses the threat to competition, (1) a monopoly is deemed to exist when one company controls at least 25% of the market...

My compliments, sir - it's really just a cultural gap and we're both right!