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.
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.
Has somebody not been paying attention?
Or do they mean, "less combative, more abhorrent"?
you had me at #!
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/
third time is a charm. ...for who is yet to be seen.
They are using standard buisiness practices to ensure market share.
If by "standard" you mean leveraging their dominance in order to crush the competition and force their way into other avenues...
They must be absolutely TERRIFIED now!
Deleted
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!
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
Well, you actually have a real option of alternatives to a GM car... when is the last time you went to *insert local computer friendly store here* and you saw a real alternative on sale for Windows/Office?
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
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 .
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.
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?
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.'"
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?
Oh come on. You can't possibly be that naive.
Here's the facts:
1. Many organizations, in particular governments, are beginning to mandate the use of open file formats.
2. A potential competitor to one of Microsoft's core product lines (read: profit center), OpenOffice.org, uses ISO open file formats; ODF, and is thus of some great interest to these government agencies.
3. Microsoft cannot afford to have its Office profit center undermined either by a competing product or by a competing, open standard like ODF.
4. Microsoft creates OOXML, a document standard so enormous and so riddled with proprietary references that it would be impossible for anyone not privy to Microsoft's older formats (which are not published) to actually produce their own OOXML-compliant product.
5. Microsoft then attempts to subvert the ISO by trying to buy votes. The purpose of this is to get OOXML ISO certification, so that when a government agency mandates an open document format, Microsoft can maneuver OOXML, which can only really be utilized by Microsoft Office, by trumpeting its "open" designation.
In short, OOXML is a rather elaborate scam, involving an unimplentable format, subverting the ISO and using it to maintain its all-important Office product line from meaningful competition.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Lots of corrupt and nasty things are considered "standard" business practices. I mean, insider trading goes on a bit, so does that mean if we catch some CEO in the act, we shouldn't prosecute because it's a "standard business practice".
Microsoft holds a monopoly position in two key areas; desktop operating systems and office integration software. It's attempt to buy itself ISO certification was a damned dirty trick, and an attempt to leverage its monopoly to maintain market dominance. It's being picked on because a monopoly is held up to a different standard than another company.
And the EU certainly isn't picking on Microsoft alone. Both Apple and Google seem to be in its sights as well.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Most people here want the world to become a better place. And we talk about Microsoft instead of GM because this is a computer geek forum, not a car geek forum. It may be standard business practice that MS is using, it is bad anyway. It makes a perfect sense for them to do that in order to maximize their profit, it makes a perfect sense for users to oppose it.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
I work at the factory where the Onstar modules are built. BMW, among other auto manufacturers, also have the same Onstar modules for their cars. It may be a different name, but it's the same product - I know. The only difference is the STIDs and some different flash programming, but under the hood it's the same product.
Hmmm, "ISO and OOXML: Dirty tricks from MS" would make a good book.
(I wouldn't write it, though, I suck at English.)
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The E.U. needs to figure out how much money it takes to make a fine that the company cannot easily choose to pay after a 5 second profit/loss analysis to get them in line. The investigations and fine outcomes seem laughable half the time.
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
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Excellent post. I would also like to point out that Microsoft could at any time implement ODF in MSOffice. I think this is important to note because MS has constantly berated governments that have adopted (or have plans to adopt) ODF. MS claims that opting for ODF excludes MS from the bidding for contracts while this is absolutely not true; MS could use the ISO standard (ODF) rather than milking what is left of a dying lock-in strategy (file formats that are impossible for someone other than MS to implement 100% correctly be they *.doc or OOXML).
Besides point 4 does not matter. It REALLY does not matter what is ratified at ISO: Microsoft is not going to use it. They will use their own "interpretation" and "extension" of it.
So were there a software fully compatible with the OOXML standard it would be completely useless in practice. And were it to follow Microsoft extensions it would need to follow, i.e. play catch-up giving Microsoft a huge advantage.
Still Microsoft could (and would) claim "ISO standard" in sales material (as you say in your point 5).
I can imagine running Windows on kerosene....
How does OOXML in any way even have an effect on the ability of an organization to adopt ODF?
I guess you could argue that people outside the organization preferring to use some other format would make it more difficult for the organization to use the standard they had chosen, but the whole 'available at no cost on multiple platforms' aspect of OO.org limits the difficulty of saying, "No, use ODF". I mean, the people who want to use something other than ODF can't argue financial hardship, or incompatibility, so they are left grasping at things that sound an awful lot like "But I don't wanna". So there goes point 1.
The idea that they attempted to subvert the standards process is the important part, not the idea that they submitted a bad standard(or even, a standard that you, and many others, don't like), so there goes points 2,3, and 4.
That leaves point 5, which is valid. Of course, there are people given to bragging that OO.org has better support for some Office documents than Office itself, so I'm not real sure how far you can take the part about only Microsoft really being able to utilize OOXML(certainly, it will be less effort for Microsoft than anybody else).
I doubt anybody at Microsoft would argue against the idea that they are acting to protect their interests, but the notion that they are doing so in bad faith would likely raise some hackles; they are simply responding to increased interest in open standards in a way that is compatible with their investment in Office and interest in supporting their legacy formats. The response of ISO, to not fast track the standard, and the widespread rejection of OOXML as being open in a way that is useful to other people are the proper way to handle the issue, not litigation against the company.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
-- Joren
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.
Seems to me open standards ought not to have markup such as "render this like Office 98."
Just sayin'.
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.
Another problem is that most of what is written is garbage.
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.
As a Open Source purist, I hope the EU does indeed spank Microsoft hard for their OOXML iso scandal.
Off topic, I follow the actions of the EU frequently and hope they never go down the IP (imaginary property) software-patent-troll-road we have here in the states. As long as part of the world remains free, I have freedom.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
OpenOffice does not use the ISO standard, it uses a proprietary fork from the OASIS ODF specification.
There is not a single ISO-compliant application of ODF out there. SUN know what there are doing.
And Microsoft buying votes? Come on, grow up: have you seen the ranks of IBM zombies packing the national delegations for the ISO SC34, trying to block MSFT?
Of course Microsoft want OOXML standardized when governments are obsessing that somehow the badge of a "standard" makes for a better product and should be a criterion for purchasing policy. It's a bullshit argument. There are plenty of standards out there that are a crock of shit.
Being a standard merely means knowing what you are dealing with so that you can decide how and whether to use and interoperate with it.
MSFT competed for many years with a locked-down proprietary standard, and everyone cried foul, even if their Office suite is a far superior offering. Now that everyone is crying for public agencies to only use standards-based products, everyone wants to be a standard. A nobrainer.
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.
In a word, Bullshit.
First of all, a new document can't really be backward compatible with a previous document, but rather with the program. The new MS Office program is backward compatible with the older MS document formats, to the extent that it can open and save those old formats properly (which is usually pretty good, but not perfect). Clearly, OOXML is not compatible with earlier versions of MS Office.
Second, if you insist on attributing backwards compatibility between document formats, the new format must be able to hold all of the old format plus a set of optional components. OOXML does not do this in a compatible way. The format of the file's new XML content is completely different than previous binary version, and also different than their last XML format
Third, tags of the ilk "treat-1900-as-a-leap-year" or "layout-footnotes-like-word-5.0" don't really provide compatibility, refering to undocumented and/or mistaken behaviors, and confusing the roles of document content and program behavior.
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 yet, when somebody offers bribes to gain a competitive advantage on the United States, who squeals louder than Americans? They even made a law about it, if I remember correctly.
'Scuse me, I have to go cough up some of the hypocrisy I'm choking on.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Because MS-Office will remain the path of least resistance. If management (or top-level bureaucracy) can tell their masters "We're going to an open format just like your legislation says", while retaining the same product line already in place, then Microsoft has done what it needs to do.
The point of the OOXML scam is to get an ISO certification so as to lend a hand to their business partners, resellers and so forth so that when Smalltown, USA decides to go with an open file format, these guys can walk in and make submissions to local government officials saying "Hey, no prob, Office 2009 uses OOXML, certified by no less than the ISO as an open document format."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
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...
Ok, so it's like slashdot is the Daytona 500 and Microsoft is a Dodge, whereas GM is a Jet Ski.
Got it!
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
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.
Microsoft would rather give away all their european profits in fines, than lose marketshare...
If they lose a significant share, then support for alternatives will increase and lockin will decrease, eventually causing a cascade reaction causing microsoft to lose significant levels of marketshare elsewhere and be forced to fight against competitors in a more even marketplace.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
GM aren't big enough in their market to force their will on customers... If GM do something that is against the interest of their customers, those customers can easily buy from Ford, Toyota, Honda etc... Microsoft have sufficient power to screw their customers and make them suck it up. That's the issue people have. Governments are customers too, and also don't want to be screwed.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
While sun had a part in it, the ODF format differs somewhat from the previous staroffice format. The ODF format was a result of collaboration between several parties, sun played a large part simply because they already had a capable open format and it made little sense to reinvent the wheel.
Sun did this to help open up the market, so that they would be able to compete on an even playing field. This doesn't just benefit sun, but also any other company wanting to compete in that market.
Ofcourse it wasn't done out of charity, corporations never do anything out of charity, there is always an ulterior motive. The difference is that sun's goals have side effects which benefit others, whereas microsoft's goals don't benefit anyone else.
Sun have also competed in a legal way, microsoft have being involved in shady activities like vote rigging, what rational explanation can you give why illegal activities like this should be allowed?
And to answer your final question - because microsoft are too powerful in certain markets, and something needs to be done to ensure that we have free and open markets for the benefit of the vast majority of people. Competition and choice is good for consumers and drives progress. Having a single incumbent supplier is bad and results in stagnation, just look at the USSR...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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
It will start to matter when governments start to require a fully ISO standard compliant products... No corporation will use MS' non-compliant product if they need an extra step to communicate with the government.
Right now MS do not have a ISO compliant product... and they don't have an ISO approved standard, so nobody is really using the new format... until today we have only seen one docx file, everyone is using either the old doc format or pdf.
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.
That happened to me last time (and first, since it was my first holiday in the US) i was in a WalMart store... they've got those cute small penguin PC's.
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
... 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.
Almost. Had one of those hot rods in RL growing up in Detroit.
Linux is exactly like that. You're on your own until you call a couple of buddies - then about 15 people show up - about half of them carrying six packs, the rest carrying parts in their backpacks.
When you're on the road a few hours later, not only is your original problem fixed, but your jets have been changed, the cooling system's been redone and you've just picked up between another 4 to 7 horsepower.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
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
For years slashdotters have gone on about Microsoft and it's evil closed formats...
I think old habits die hard.
Lets put it this way. I think the chances of anyone being able to successfully parse an old word document from the 1990's in it's original binary format are infinitely smaller than the chance you'll have of parsing that same document once it has been converted to OpenXml utilising the contentious optional parts of the OpenXML spec.
Essentially, through OpenXML, Microsoft has to a degree opened up all it's old binary office formats.
It's all moving in the right direction. Unless forced to do so by lobbiests with vested interests and anti-MS zealots, almost no one is going to convert their MS Office systems to OpenOffice ODF. At least this way the next gen of office documents will be infiinitely more open and accessible to 3rd party players. So I really don't think there's much to complain about.
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.
Oh and one other thing...
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=941b3470-3ae9-4aee-8f43-c6bb74cd1466&displaylang=en
Microsoft have supplied support for OpenXML back to Office 2000. So OpenXML clearly is compatible with earlier versions of MS Office.
And one other thing whilst I'm educating you, its OpenXML, not OOXML. You don't even seem to know the name of it.
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