Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
...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...
I think Microsoft lost its appeal a long time ago...
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.
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
My little Linux and tech blog
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?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/
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
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.
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...
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.
"Every MS machine I've used quickly had firefox installed."
How many had IE uninstalled?
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)
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
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?"
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
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.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
"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.
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.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
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.
Shh.
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 ;-)
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.
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.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
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.
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
"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.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
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.
We at slashdot are scientists, specialists and kernel hackers. Your FUD will be found out.
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.
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.
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.
I feel like a million chairs cried out then were silenced...
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
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
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
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?
throw new NoSignatureException();
The problem isn't "bundling products", the problem is intentional leverage of market share to maintain more market share.
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?