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.'
So you're saying the company that bought votes in the international standards organisation shouldn't be under investigation?
After all the crap they pulled over trying to get OOXML standardised don't sit here and tell me they're using "standard practices". They used practically every dirty trick in the book!
GM wields influence over... what, 20-30% of the cars sold in the US? (Hey, I was right... 26.9% in 2004.) 24% is in no way a monopoly, and as such, they're perfectly fine not interoperating with other car companies, as long as they operate on the agreed-upon standards of our roads and highways, street legal laws, emissions, etc.
Microsoft on the other hand has 90% of desktops and a large number of servers under it's sway. If they make a unilateral move, they feel NO pain because of it, even if it hurts the consumers. If GM said "Screw this, we're going to force everyone to use kerosene as their fuel!", people would buy other cars. When Microsoft says the same thing, people have to do it, or not be able to share documents, etc. THAT, my friend, is the difference.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
The problem with the standard is that it is not complete as written. It leaves big gaping holes which point to closed doors; closed-source Microsoft products. And the purpose of submitting it as a standard is to have it used in places in which actual open standards should be mandatory, such as when interfacing with government. To require a closed standard (however open it pretends to be) to work with a government is to grant a monopoly. Why should the people of any nation ever pay for such a thing?
Microsoft is not a "non-EU" company. They are multinational. They operate in the EU. If they choose to stop operating in the EU, then the EU will have no power over them and they can do whatever they want - somewhere else.
Microsoft has no god-given right to profits or even to do business in the EU. They are permitted to do so because it is believed that it is beneficial to trade. When they are no longer a beneficial influence on the market, why should they be permitted to participate? Because of some standard of justice? If the market cannot sustain their influence, then their influence should be eliminated or at the least mitigated to permit the market to continue to function, or the market should be superseded by the monopoly in question. Un(?)fortunately, Microsoft cannot provide the needs of the entire UK software market (although they would like you to believe that they can) and so this is not a solution.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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?
Point the first: Microsoft does not provide adequate product lines for the desktop market. They are discontinuing Windows XP (the third service pack is already what, a year late?) and Vista is a gigantic step backwards in many respects, especially performance -- even with the new service pack, as reported here yesterday.
Point the second: Microsoft's continuing abuse of their monopoly position has a chilling effect on innovation. When a new technology comes out, Microsoft either purchases and ruins it, or poorly emulates it and thus marginalizes it. Microsoft has in the past even gone so far as to wrap their functions in other functions with delay loops, and not document the originals, reserving them for their own use, so that competitors' software runs artificially poorly on their operating system! Seriously, Microsoft has done more damage to computing than all the accidentally sloppy programming ever executed.
And speaking of executed, BillyG has parlayed his theft and betrayal into a position atop the Gates Foundation pyramid. He's in control of big boatloads of money cruising around the globe. He gives with one hand and takes with the other ("Dark cloud over good works of gates foundation", title of a lovely article IIRC) and just whose pocket is he in, anyway? Certainly the USDOJ had him dead to rights when they patted him on the back and sent him off to play with all that money. No matter how you look at the situation - from a technical standpoint, or a human one - the whole damned thing is just a collection of tragedies.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
True enough. It would be much more reasonable for the EU to impose fines that are greater than the profit derived from the illicit actions (whether or not that would bankrupt Microsoft shouldn't be a consideration in Anti-Trust issues and it is a shame people consider it so).
If Microsoft attempts to strong arm the EU, the EU could then exert its right to seize assets. Microsoft's greatest assets are its IP and if the EU legally seizes Microsoft copyrights the same WWII agreements you refer to would cause the change of ownership to be recognized globally, not just in the EU.