Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Under Third EU Investigation for OOXML
The Wall Street Journal and Information Week reported this morning that EU regulators have announced a third investigation into Microsoft's conduct on the desktop. This latest action demonstrates that while the EU has settled the case against Microsoft that ran for almost a decade, it remains as suspicious as ever regarding the software vendor's conduct, notwithstanding Microsoft's less combative stance in recent years. The news can be found in a story reported by Charles Forelle bylined in Brussells this morning. According to the Journal, the investigation will focus on whether Microsoft 'violated antitrust laws during a struggle last year to ratify its Office
software file format as an international standard.' The article also says that the regulators are 'stepping up scrutiny of the issue.'
MSOOXML.NET is the future
Before adopting WHATWG, read the moonlight.NET EULA [http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx]
Poor Microsoft, always under attack from all sides. How is the poor little thing to survive? Won't someone please think of the corporation?
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
No one expects the Flemish Inquisition!
Our two weapons are surprise, chocolate, and sprouts!
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Yeah, we should allow abusive monopolies to corrupt absolutely everything. That's true capitalism, fucking over the consumer at every opportunity.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Even if Microsoft only lost a moderate share of their office software if would be a gigantic blow to the company and send the stock plunging. Microsoft will fight open office documents like their very existence depends on it. And it also shows how desperate Microsoft is in finding new revenue streams beyond Windows and Office.
Or maybe you could step beyond the anonymity to describe how
being dictated to by a monopolist substantially differs from
being dictated to by a nanny-state:
in either case, you're told exactly how much cash to kiss goodbye, at exactly what frequency.
There simply isn't a good case, technical or otherwise, against ODF.
Some find the vampire-on-vampire action strangely...interesting.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
So you're saying the company that bought votes in the international standards organisation shouldn't be under investigation?
Microsoft is like a roadhog that won't let anyone pass...jamming up the highway so no one gets infront of them! Control seems to be a great way earn.
> Why don't European taxpayers do something? Are they ALL surrender monkeys?
No, they ARE doing something. As it happens, the American taxpayers happened to be the surrender monkeys (due to the toothless DoJ under the current administration).
Has somebody not been paying attention?
Or do they mean, "less combative, more abhorrent"?
you had me at #!
According to you, Not letting companies do whatever the hell they want (even if it's illegal) == communism. Sucking Microsoft's dick == trust
Of course, the capitalists read these theories as well and were convinced that such aggregation is a real threat and is bad - thus the anti-trust laws were born out of a truly capitalist spirit.
Are three weapons are surprise, chocolate, sprouts, and Van Damme!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If anything, it seems (at least to me) that Microsoft is more brazen today about flouting its monopoly position than it was ten or fifteen years ago...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
-erick
http://www.yourfavoritegadgets.com/
http://www.busyweather.com/
And as a slashdot fan, this will eventually screw them over. When I can share my spreadsheet from desktop, to laptop, to PDA, to amazon reader with no issues... I will be using that spreadsheet all the time. Not the microsoft closed source.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
third time is a charm. ...for who is yet to be seen.
They must be absolutely TERRIFIED now!
Deleted
Can someone please explain how submitting a standard to a standards board is anti-competitive? Even if OOXML is accepted as a standard, no-one is obliged to use/support it. I know that folks hate Microsoft, but this is just silly. Yes, they gamed the voting. Of course they did, it was in their interest to do so. Did that show magical monopolist powers? No. Every other software vendor or customer in the world is still perfectly free to ignore OOXML, just as MS is free to ignore anyone else's standard when writing their software. The US still uses a standardized foot for measurements, but the rest of the world is permitted to use a meter if they so desire, despite the big mean American's power.
I'd be much more impressed with EU anti-trust efforts if they weren't pretty much aimed at non-EU companies. They're mostly a trade barrier rather than a legitimate regulatory body.
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
Has Microsoft abused its monopoly position? Absolutely, categorically, yes.
Is the EU upset because an American company so thoroughly dominates the European market? Yes.
Is there anything remotely like real competition for Microsoft in the desktop coming from any European companies? No.
Regulating Microsoft is fine, but at what point does it simply become regulation for the sake of regulation? If the goal is to develop a competitive landscape, what else is the EU doing, other than punishing Microsoft, to create that competitive landscape? Seems the EU knows how to use the stick to punish American software companies, but hasn't figured out how to use the carrot to get European companies to go up against Microsoft.
And yes, I know about SAP. I know about SuSE. I'm talking about serious competition for the desktop market.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
This comment about less combative comes at an interesting time. Reminders of Zimbra's likely end of commercial support from Yahoo. Reminders that outlook's web client sucks balls in anything other than MSIE. And right now, XP is asking me to install some updates, but apparently won't do so unless I allow it to install the Genuine Advantage Notification tool... whose name at least doesn't imply that it is a critical piece of the operating system. At least my copy of Windows XP is legal.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
As we have already seen, other Microsoft antitrust cases have resulted in the release of Windows N and some other consequences, which haven't caused any big trouble to Microsoft.We can guess/expect Microsoft wont be affected. The big brother will find out/create a escape route for itself .
It is not sensible to impose punishments that are completely invisible to the corporation and which Microsoft might never pay anyway. Why should they? They own most of the EU's financial computers and could easily out-last the EU itself if it ever came to a standoff.
I don't know what the EU could do to impose the rule of law on Microsoft - suspending business licenses there might be the only thing Microsoft would really notice, and even then, that's not remotely guaranteed.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It was the EU, in 2004, along with some other governments, that asked Microsoft to submit their formats for standardization. So now they don't like this?
Any sensible government would do what the EU is doing.
The question is why is the US government letting Microsoft do anything they want?
EU suggested that microsoft bribe standards bodies to buy votes in favour of OOXML?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
No, it is not. It is simply faced with a single-minded regulator which takes its job seriously and isn't fazed by the fact that Microsoft is a brazen repeat-offender.
GM does not have an 80% market share in the car market. Microsoft does have such a market share in the desktop OS market. That's a big difference.What Microsoft is currently doing with OOXML is a thoroughly unethical (paying companies PR contributions to vote in favour of OOXML, offering small countries rebates to vote in favour of OOCML, and suddenly stuffing ISO standards committees with pro-microsoft members who never before had an interest in ISO procedures in their lives) attempt to continue its lock-in, which regrettably seems to have a chance or working. (see e.g. http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080208082501776 and http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/08/ooxml_eu_probe_iso/ )
I see absolutely nothing to salute Microsoft about regarding its determination to disregard fair-competition and anti-trust regulations and I support the EU in this matter. Why don't we see any US regulators step up to the plate?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
No, IIRC the EU asked Microsoft to document (not submit for standardization) MS's existing file formats, not to create a new, badly-documented one.
If EU spend 1% of the time they spend on meaningless quarrels with Microsoft on presenting a plan for he use of software that DO following international standards and DO have open source code that each states security people can scrutinize for Trojans and whatnot, then maybe Microsoft would conform to whatever EU wants by their own free will. Currently enormous amounts of money is spent on Microsoft licenses in schools and public offices that could be better spent elsewhere. Such an initiative from EU would also automatically strengthen the Linux world and maybe even create an opportunity for a completely new type of OS to be developed. A OS that is designed with todays knowledge and todays needs. Mr José Manuel Barroso - we do not actually need MS Office. Just tell your colleagues to use a software that does not threaten the economic balance and does not make you paranoid. Try Open Office. You will be surprised. Microsofts Office is not Open, and quite frankly, I do not understand why someone expect it to be. Bill & the other bosses at Microsoft has a responsibility towards their company and the shareholders of that company, not towards EU.
Whoosh!
You should address your complaints about how Microsoft isn't violating antitrust by addressing the specific provisions leveraged against the multinational Microsoft corporation. Even in the apparently (given the punishment phase) Microsoft-friendly United States Judge Jackson's findings of fact haven't been seriously questioned. It stands to reason that with such findings on the books, other countries have good reason to at least launch investigations into Microsoft's behavior and see if it comports with their laws; the very action being discussed in this /. thread.
Digital Citizen
yeah they'd never prosecute an eu corporation now would they?
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/012407-eu-fines-siemens-for-role.html
As we've all learned a few weeks ago, Ballmer suffers from an A1 genetic mutation. And how fucking dare anyone make fun of Steve, after all he's been through! He lost his hair, he went through a divorce*?, he had two fucking kids*? All you people care about is readers and making money off of him!
*? Source unknown, so validity is questionable.
They are the one which can define what a standard is and what is not acceptable. In the pure spirit of capitalism if MS thinks EU is out of bound they can go out of EU and stop selling there (fat chance in Hell). Furthermore I don't recall EU requiring MS to buy vote in to make their own cooked stuff forcefully becoming a standard. That last part is even more damning than making a bad document format with all the trapping of a standard without the spirit of one.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Relax, it's just the Microsoft trolls coming out of the woodwork. Every time there's a story on the EU versus Microsoft, they come out with the same lines: "MS getting picked on", "EU grabbing for pocket money", "EU is a sheeple/socialist/communist [expletive]-place". It's really getting old by now.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
What ever happened to the notion of second sourcing? Shouldn't any self-respecting government require that there be more than one complete implementation of whatever standard it decides upon? As such, even if OOXML becomes an ISO standard, as is likely, it would seem to me that the next battle should for the requirement of 2nd sourcing. Given the fact that MSFT seems to have made the OOXML standard unimplementable, it would seem unlikely that there will be a 2nd source for a OOXML office suite (not to mention the fact that no company will waste its time trying to compete with MSFT in this manner). This is in contrast to ODF, which has several competing implementations.
Should OpenOffice.org not have a definite advantage here?
Monopoly is the opposite of capitalism. It is so predictable that whenever some complains about capitalism, they are actually complaining about the lack of capitalism.
I agree. MSFT should just pick up its marbles and go home. That'd teach those commies. Oh wait ....
That's just bullshit, the EU regularly goes after European companies you just don't hear or read about it because they're not American companies. Typical American complaints.
No, this is a completely legitimate response that should be brought up every time a (n abusive) monopoly is held up as the end result of, or a typical manifestation of, capitalism. All too often predatory or government-mandated monopolies are used as an example of why capitalism is an undesirable system. The premise (that monopolies exist in a healthy capitalistic system) is false and continually repeating it just discourages rational thought about different economic systems. The same thing continually happens when the Soviet Union is held up as a functional socialist system. In fact, the Soviet Union example has led to the term "socialism" being a pejorative in the United States, even though the US is very socialist in many ways (eg granting unnatural monopolies).
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Does anyone around here believe that freedom and free markets are a good thing? This is 2008 -- you are not required to use Windows or Office. If you want to use Linux, you can. If you want to use Open Office, you can.
What is the deal with the "run to government to fix everything" reflex? Did government force create Open Office, or did the free market? Did government force create Linux or did the free market? Did government force convince Sun to open source Solaris or did the free market?
I understand the idea of monopolies, but most comments here seem to use that as an excuse for "favors" handed out by governments. There are competing products and only network-effects are capable of explaining MS's current position.
Most governments already piss and moan. What exactly is the EU doing differently?
Monopoly isn't the opposite of capitalism, it's the ultimate goal of participants in capitalism.
And it's where capitalism will go if left unregulated.
The problem is not with capitalism. Unduly powerful entitites can arise under socialism or communism. The problem is with corporations that have been allowed to grow too large and powerful. Rather, we should say the problem is corporatism. And corporatism is fascism-- which the government allows by proxy, in the public sector.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
I'm a bit curious...
When articles such as these say "The EU is investigating Microsoft", who is it that's doing the investigation? Who is instigating this investigation and/or how is it decided to pursue MS?
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
They are pissing and moaning about things which are in the people's best interests. :)
And not only that, but also in the telecom and beer market huge fines have been given.
Back to Siemaens. This happened even though Neelie Kroes is befriended with the CEO of Siemens.
Bert
Who would like to think that the people who think that the investigation of MS is anti-americanism are just jealous that in the EU at least an attempt at justice is made, but who knows better and has to blame
Open source software promotes Competition.
Closed source software promotes Collusion.
This isn't about trying to hurt Microsoft. This is about influencing the verious national standardization bodies to take effective action against committee stacking.
Without this kind of high-level antitrust complaint, the tempation for national standardization bodies (NBs = "national bodies") to sweep all complaints regarding committee-stacking under the rug is just too great. After all, they're getting some money from each company that delegates an "expert" into the committee, regardless of whether that person is a genuine expert of the subject matter under consideration or someone who doesn't know anything of relevance beyond "my company supports OOXML". Add to this that the NBs are really dependent on the "convenors" (chairs) of the decision-making committees. These are not paid by the NB but rather by some company which has delegated this person into the committee. If no-one is willing to do this convenor work, standardization work will stop in the NB for that topic area, and the NB will no longer be able to collect membership fees from companies interested in standardization work in that topic area. For that reason, NBs are very reluctant to do anything that might cause a "convenor" to quit. A demand to take effective action against committee-stacking could make the convenor's role much more difficult, while driving away the only person willing to be "convenor" is an outcome that the NB absolutely has to avoid. Solutions to the problem are possible, for example I have heard that DIN (the German NB) has a reasonable set of rules, but many NBs have a serious problem which can only be addressed by means of a painful reform...
This is true; I live in Brussels and I have immense difficulty leaving my house and doing anything in this city due to the thousands of plots of sprouts (or as they like to call them here, cabbages). You have to be so careful where you step!
Let's not forget the reason for wanting open standards for document formats. No-one (with the possible exception of Microsoft itself) can possibly wants to be locked in by means of document formats to be forced to use Microsoft products forever.
The solution to this problem is standardization. The approval process for international standards is supposed to guarantee that no document format with vendor lock-in properties can be approved as an international standard. That's why it was a totally reasonable step from the EU's perspective to demand standardization of Microsoft's formats. That would have solved the lock-in problem without forcing the EU to undertake the expense of e.g. migrating to using ODF.
However it seems that Microsoft's strategy is make OOXML "open" in name but not in reality (that would mean making it effectively possible for competitors to compete with Microsoft regarding "who has the best implementation of OOXML" - however Microsoft is careful to prevent effective competition of that kind) and push it through the ISO approval process nevertheless by means of tactics involving committee-stacking.
Of course the EU must say "NO!" to that if they don't want to lose their credibility completely!
The EU could try to pull this stunt, but watch what happens when/if the US retaliates. Say, the US blocks the merger of KLM/Air France, $1m landing fees and huge tarrifs on Airbus aircraft for illegal (in the US) launch aid, invalidate IP protections on Bayer, pull more US forces from Europe .. the list goes on. There are a slew of things legal in the US, but not in the EU -- and vice versa. There needs to be a uniform way to handle these things, just as aircraft certification is harmonized.
MS is trying to get OOXML accepted by a standards body. That is hardly an act requiring retaliation by the EU.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
A fine is a way to comply somebdoy with the law.
Normally somebody breaking the law constantly will be dealt done in more harshere way. You stupid scenario is simply imposible.
Would MS tried to pull that one (they are not that stupid) the EU would confiscate their assets in the EU, keep the business running and would put lots of asses in a court of law.
Also you are blissfully unaware that MS may have not much cash left if the Yahoo acquisition goes ahead...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
patent-scam, novell-scam
Microsoft's less combative stance in recent years? WTF?
> Yes, they gamed the voting. Of course they did, it was in their interest to do so.
That does not make it all right.
Let me explain: if it was in my best interest to murder somebody, that would not make such a murder legal. Believe it or not, the same principal applies to msft. I know it's hard for the msft shills to grasp, but msft is not above the law.
This is a very clear case of msft abusing their monopoly position. Msft keeps everybody locked into msft's office products by have a proprietary format. Msft is looking to keep that monopoly locked in.
My blog entry begins:
Sound familiar?- Andy
http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSL215845620070221
I would paste the whole table but it won't let me because of an annoying white space filter.
I understand the idea of monopolies... You clearly don't, because the entire point is that a coercive monopoly is detrimental to the functioning of a free market.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
"Why don't we do it your way fucktard and go totally communist and have the government totally run everything."
And the downside to that is what exactly?
... MS has less than 39.7% of whatever markets MS happens to be in.
I completely agree with you — the participants would like to have monopoly positions in markets. However, that situation is not capitalism; it is its opposite. *cough* Centrally planed economy *cough* Commies.
Your answer is instructive; that notwithstanding, I *think* MightyMartian was being sarcastic.
It's pretty obvious that capitalism is a system meant to be good, i.e., serve both sides -- corporations and customers.
That what we're having nowadays -- abusive monopolies, client exploitation -- is just pure greed. This should be obvious by now, and even moreso around here.
But what of the EU's power to shut down Microsoft? Minimal at best. The impact would have many EU businesses up in arms, America would bring the WTO and the World Bank to bear, and the EU would be forced to back down. The most the EU can do is impose fines that Microsoft is willing to pay as the price of owning - err, doing business.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Marked as a Troll? Too many moderators don't know how the EU works I think.
we in the e.u. should point out that WW2 ended a long time ago & the us has extracted more than a fair return over the last 60yrs + and stop holding the free world over a barrel
To determine if they are still a monopoly, let's see what a monopoly is.
Monopoly is defined as "exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices."
Does Microsoft have a exclusive control over a service? Let's see what services they offer.
Operating System : Windows XP/Vista
Competitors : GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, MacOS X
Web Browser : Internet Explorer
Competitors : Firefox and Opera
Video Game Console : X-Box 360
Competitors : Nintendo Wii, Sony Playstation 3
Office Suite : Microsoft Office
Competitor : Openoffice.org/Star Office
Search Engine : MSN Search
Competitors : Alta Vista, Google, and Yahoo is still a competitor
There are numerous programming suites to compete with Microsoft programming suites both open source and closed source.
Although Microsoft could send an update to disable software such as Firefox and numerous other pieces of software I highly doubt they will as someone could move to GNU/Linux immediately.
Personally I don't think Microsoft should really be worried about the European Union as much as their customers. A business should always remember the golden rule "The customer is always right." In other words, a business should always respect their customers.
The point of the previous paragraph is to point out that if you think that Microsoft is holding the world of computing together, you are fucking hallucinating, because in reality if anything gets accomplished in computing it is in spite of Microsoft, not because of it.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. But my question is this: What is the EU doing other than continuing to sue Microsoft, to develop a truly competitive market in the EU?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Go slit your fucking wrists fucktard.