Slashdot Mirror


EU Fines Microsoft $1.3 Billion

jd writes "The EU has slammed Microsoft with a fine of €899 million ($1.337 billion at current exchange rates) for perpetuating violations of the 2004 antitrust ruling.The fine is the sum of daily fines running from June 21, 2006 to October 21, 2007. It is the first company ever to be fined for non-compliance. The amazing thing is that the EU now expects Microsoft to comply and 'close a dark chapter' in their history. The EU has opened new investigations into Microsoft's practices and gave a lukewarm response to the company's turning over yet another new leaf last week."

699 comments

  1. Well... by cosmotron · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's 1.337.

    --
    Ryan - http://www.thecosmotron.com/
    1. Re:Well... by eebra82 · · Score: 1

      Sorry to disappoint you, but it's actually 1.332.

      Follow currency values via Google.

    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tru1y 4 1337 13641 d3c1s10n

    3. Re:Well... by the4thdimension · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, it is likely impossible to track. Later today its bound to be a totally different value because our dollar value fluctuates on a near daily basis based on economy.

    4. Re:Well... by hjf · · Score: 1

      near daily? Try "all day long".

    5. Re:Well... by Teun · · Score: 5, Informative

      The dollar doesnt fluctuate, it drops.
      Today it hit the lowest ever value against the Euro.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    6. Re:Well... by cp.tar · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's 1.337.

      Imagine the awesomeness if that were the desired effect.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    7. Re:Well... by mweather · · Score: 1, Informative

      And by lowest ever you mean lowest in 9 years.

    8. Re:Well... by gclef · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, since the euro has only existed for 9 years, lowest ever == lowest in 9 years.

    9. Re:Well... by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      our dollar value fluctuates on a near daily basis
      All exchange rates change constantly though the day - that's how currency dealers make their money, trying to guess how the day will go.
      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    10. Re:Well... by jank1887 · · Score: 2, Funny

      no. even if the value changes, it'll still be 1.337

    11. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The EURO exists longer than 9 years. It is only since then that notes and coins are available. In former times the EURO has been called ECU.

    12. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The dollar doesnt fluctuate, it drops.
      Today it hit the lowest ever value against the Euro.


      Not really. I was listening to an economist from the UK, and he stated that the Euro was somewhat overvalued to the dollar. He and others see an adjustment coming down the pike in late '09 to early '10 when Europe catches up with our credit crunch.

      Like it or not, for better or worse the US is the trend setter and the EU is the laggard by 4-12 quarters.
    13. Re:Well... by alexhs · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nitpicking with an AC...

      Euro an ECU are not the same thing, but when the second replaced the first one, its value was chosen to be initially the same. Look for the ECU and Euro wikipedia pages.

      Also coins and notes are available only since 2002.

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    14. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      translation: truly a leet legal decision
      (that was good! took me a bit to figure out the 13641...)

    15. Re:Well... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Euro an ECU are not the same thing, but when the second replaced the first one Sorry for nitpicking with the nitpick, but it's the "first" (the Euro) that replaced "the second" one (ECU).
      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    16. Re:Well... by neo420 · · Score: 1

      They don't get it... h4x0r$ r001

    17. Re:Well... by Jorgandar · · Score: 1

      If you're very, very sure about that, are you out there making tons of cash by betting against the dollar? Just wondering.

    18. Re:Well... by curmudgeous · · Score: 1

      In Microsoft currency, 1.33 billion dollars is about 1/40th of a Yahoo. Wow.

    19. Re:Well... by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 3, Informative

      And rather than fix it by raising interest rates, the Fed is doing the opposite, attempting to stave off a recession that's going to happen anyway. The sad thing is, they're only making things dramatically worse, because they're setting the U.S. economy on the road to hyperinflation. What good will it do trying to encourage consumption when the foreign goods they want us to consume keep getting more expensive?

    20. Re:Well... by Random+Web+Developer · · Score: 1

      which is why the states is headed for recession (some say) and the eu isn't yet, which also means the fed will probably drop rates again, which means a dollar will be worth less shortly

      it will revive someday, possibly when the eu heads for recession after the us recovers from it.
      will the eur/usd rate ever be 1 again, who knows, but it will take more than one rally

      --
      Artists against online scams http://www.aa419.org/
    21. Re:Well... by nacturation · · Score: 4, Funny

      Euro an ECU are not the same thing, but when the second replaced the first one Sorry for nitpicking with the nitpick, but it's the "first" (the Euro) that replaced "the second" one (ECU). And apologies for nitpicking over a nit with the nitpicker's nitpicker, but temporally speaking the second replaced the first.
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    22. Re:Well... by SOMNIVM · · Score: 1

      $1,51 = 1 (today)

    23. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I was listening to an economist from the UK, and he stated that the Euro was somewhat overvalued to the dollar. He and others see an adjustment coming down the pike in late '09 to early '10 when Europe catches up with our credit crunch.


      That's got to be one of the biggest piles of doubletalk crap I've ever heard.

      The Euro isn't "overvalued"... the USD was. But thanks to GWB, the world has spent the last eight years wondering why they continue to prop up the US economy- it's only the biggest market because everyone else makes it so.

      So... for the last eight years, countries have been diversifying, putting more of their money into the Euro. And since it's unlikely a collection of states would become warmongers (as opposed to one country with a history of immoral and imperialist activities), that also makes diversifying into other places a vote for global stability and prosperity, as well.

      Every time US conservatives come into power, America (and world peace) suffers for it. Hopefully, this most recent and excessively corrupt conservative administration will finally cause Americans to reject these people. Perhaps not, since stupid is still a very powerful and influential demographic in the USA, but one can hope.
    24. Re:Well... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      In Microsoft currency, 1.33 billion dollars is about 1/40th of a Yahoo. Wow.

      Exactly, they also paid additional to their other EU fines:
              * 750 Million Dollars to AOL,
              * 23 Million Dollars to Be Inc,
              * 1,6 Billion Dollars to Sun Microsystems,
              * 150 Million Dollars to Gateway,
              * 775 Million Dollars to IBM,
              * 761 Million Dollars to Realnetworks.

      It's really pettycash for them, after all it's all our money.

    25. Re:Well... by frietbsd · · Score: 1


      |Actually, it is likely impossible to track. Later today its bound to be a totally different
      |value because our dollar value fluctuates on a near daily basis based on economy.

      http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?amt=899000000&from=EUR&to=USD&submit=Convert

    26. Re:Well... by opus · · Score: 1

      If they ever need more cash in the bank, they can just stop extending the EOL of Windows XP. They don't want to do it before Vista + SP1 is fully stable, but it's their call.

    27. Re:Well... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      They are putting odd the inevitable, Becasue when the democrats come into office they can blame it on them when it snaps.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    28. Re:Well... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The USD recently (within the last few months) hit it's lowest value against the AUD (Australian Dollar), THB (Thailand Baht), PHP (Philipines Peso) and JPY (Japanese Yen) these currencies have existed for over 40 years, the USD has been dropping against unstable currencies (THB, PHP) as well as against stable currencies (GBP, EUR, JPY, AUD).

      Just 4 short years ago, the AUD was struggling to stay above 0.5 USD, today we are nearing parity with the USD. The AUD is currently enjoying a 50 year high against the green back with today's exchange rate at 1(AUD):0.942(USD).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    29. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's got to be one of the biggest piles of doubletalk crap I've ever heard.

      The Euro isn't "overvalued"... the USD was. But thanks to GWB, the world has spent the last eight years wondering why they continue to prop up the US economy- it's only the biggest market because everyone else makes it so.


      Really? Has the EU credit crunch hit yet? Have their banks printed more money to stave off the crisis? Oh, they will, no doubt. The UK is already preparing to start down that path. Note that I didn't say that the dollar would fully recover to its heyday against the Euro; I simply insinuated that the constant drop was not permanent. Then again, you rabid Eurotards have always had a reading comprehension issue when the truth doesn't suit you.

      On another note, when the Euro boomers retire, it will get really interesting because their entitlement programs make the US' social security look lame. It will be interesting to watch their social structure implode. No amount of young Polish plumbers will save them.. LOL!

      So basically, you're the one who is full of shit.
    30. Re:Well... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      This is really why the Euro is bounding ahead even when things look grey, or even wild and wooly:

      http://www.americazoo.com/goto/index/mammals/29.htm

    31. Re:Well... by GESUS · · Score: 1

      All your 1337 are belong to us!

    32. Re:Well... by Meski · · Score: 1

      which is why the states is headed for recession (some say) and the eu isn't yet, which also means the fed will probably drop rates again, which means a dollar will be worth less shortly
      What happens when you run out of room to drop rates? (0%) Call me curious about that. I suppose you could go negative, because actual rates charged for things like mortgages, credit cards etc are an offset from the official rate. Many other countries (EG Oz for one are increasing their rates to reduce inflationary pressure, and this likely is having an effect on the dollar exchange rate. (makes more sense to invest in cash bonds etc where the rates are higher, so the AUD goes up against US)
  2. awesome by losethisurl · · Score: 0, Redundant

    lol, 1337 billion

    --
    Seriously, is it supposed to look like that?
  3. 1.3 billion by ZenDragon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm curious as to where that money is going to be going. 1.3 billion? Clearly some people are taking advantage of the situation in an effort to line their own pockets.

    1. Re:1.3 billion by 1001011010110101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, sure. They should slap them in the wrist like the US did instead.

    2. Re:1.3 billion by mallardtheduck · · Score: 5, Informative

      As I understand it, fines issued by the EU go to EU member states.

      I also don't understand why the size of the fine "clearly" indicates that people are lining their pockets. This is not the largest fine ever issued. (ExxonMobil was fined $5 Billion for Exxon Valdez, later halved, but so far not paid.)

    3. Re:1.3 billion by WiglyWorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd prefer to have seen Microsoft go the way of Standard Oil or "Ma Bell". The problem was, I don't think anyone in the courts at the time really understood the issue.

    4. Re:1.3 billion by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What's 1.3 billion to Microsoft? They threw a cool billion away because they couldn't be bothered doing proper quality control for the 360 and they threw away 4 billion on the original Xbox. Lord knows how much more they've thrown away. They probably burn $100 bills for fun.

      The only punishments that would hurt Microsoft have been illegal since the Dark Ages.

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    5. Re:1.3 billion by Gewalt · · Score: 0, Informative

      You have no freakin clue what you're talking about, "where the money goes" is a matter of pubic record, with a nice clear paper trail. If you're curious about it, go look it up. Don't create baseless accusations.

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    6. Re:1.3 billion by fondacio · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. The fine is a percentage of the turnover of the company in question (small companies get relatively small fines, large companies relatively large - hence the size of the MS fine). It flows into the EU budget, which is also composed of contributions by EU member states. So basically, the fine adds 899 billion euros to the balance, which means that the member states need to pay less.

    7. Re:1.3 billion by red+star+hardkore · · Score: 1

      Interesting... Maybe they should fine MS another few billion and we might have lower taxes next year :) j/k

    8. Re:1.3 billion by Teun · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm curious as to where that money is going to be going. 1.3 billion? Clearly some people are taking advantage of the situation in an effort to line their own pockets. A stupid remark, you should be whipped.

      From the EU website:
      The penalty payment is paid into the EU Budget. It does not increase the budget, but reduces the contribution from Member States and so from taxpayers.
      So in deference to us paying the Microsoft tax Microsoft is paying (a small part of) EU tax, brilliant :)
      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    9. Re:1.3 billion by Skrynesaver · · Score: 5, Funny

      I believe there was a plan at one point to split them in three (Legal, Marketing and Sales AFAIR). But the new regime changed the DoJ's mind.

      --
      "Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
    10. Re:1.3 billion by ZenDragon · · Score: 0, Troll

      Thanks for your comments troll. Nowhere in that statement did I actually imply that I did know what I was talking about. I simply stated it seemed like somebody was pumping up the fine a bit for personal gain. I could give flying rats ass who's doing it, my only interest pertains to where its going. Sure its a matter of public record; giving said amount of money to Charity A that is run by City Official B. Or wait, does this money go to fix public facilities? To pay, 100 dollars an hour for repairs that would normally cost $30? Surely you don't just accept that there is no corruption in any legal system? It is my personal opinion that fines like this should be thoroughly investigated, every time they are issued. 1.3 Billion dollars is a extremely large sum of money to be awarded in a legal case. Last time it was reported (though I may be mistaken) Microsoft didn't even have that much cash on hand. Off topic, I find it amusing that 1.3 billion dollars can be awarded for a anti-trust case, but only $25,000 dollars per incident (maybe its more now) can be fined when a oil company dumps tons of toxic waste in a lake somewhere and killing/mutating half the wild life. If the courts wanted to fine this much money they should be awarding it back to the the businesses that sustained losses due to Microsoft practices, though that seems a bit difficult does it not? Nevertheless, that money has to go somewhere and you simply can not argue that there are a few that stand to make a fortune off of this case.

    11. Re:1.3 billion by kisak · · Score: 5, Funny

      The only punishments that would hurt Microsoft have been illegal since the Dark Ages.

      You mean waterboarding?

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    12. Re:1.3 billion by ZenDragon · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I don't understand how the bulk of you could be so naive. Maybe I'm just a bit cynical but you cant possibly comprehend enormity of 1.3 billion dollars until you have it. I woudl be willing to bet that there are people with their hands in this pot. I personally could care less about who, more power two them. Regardless, none of us have any grounds on which to deny that so this argument is essentially pointless.

    13. Re:1.3 billion by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 1

      What's 1.3 billion to Microsoft?

      Well that's only a summation of their daily fine since it was first issued, it's still ticking too. Their stockholder's might be pissed that they are throwing away money that isn't going to company efforts, and I seriously doubt the Bush administration will be able coax the EU into nullifying the fines.

    14. Re:1.3 billion by Gewalt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You're calling ME a troll? Did you even read what you wrote? You simply made a baseless accusation in the hopes of getting people pissed.

      THATS WHAT YOU CALL A TROLL!

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    15. Re:1.3 billion by twistedsymphony · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only punishments that would hurt Microsoft have been illegal since the Dark Ages.
      What's that? Personally I think the best punishment would be to hit them where it hurts. If the fine isn't paid in X number of days Ban the sale of all MS products in the EU until the fine is paid, then once paid give them X number of days to comply or the ban gets reenacted and wont be reversed until it's paid AND they comply.

      This is the most appropriate punishment because it is MS's anti-competitive behavior that would ultimately lead to them being barred from competing in the marketplace. It's not like people wouldn't be able to buy Macs or install Linux for their OS or use Open office/other alternatives for productivity.

      Heck it might actually do the industry some good, nothing breeds innovation like necessity.
    16. Re:1.3 billion by sempernoctis · · Score: 1, Funny

      Looks like the EU has found a new revenue model :)

    17. Re:1.3 billion by IndieKid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it would severely hurt industry across the EU if the sale of Microsoft products were banned, especially since the EU has to deal with the rest of the world who for the most part use Microsoft products. It's just not possible for free/open source software to inter-operate effectively with Microsoft products at the moment, which was kind of the whole point of the anti-trust ruling.

    18. Re:1.3 billion by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 1

      I only wish that Microsoft could be barred from competing in the workplace. Unfortunately, it is probably the most insidious monopoly in history such that most commercial enterprises depend on being able to buy their software. For many end users Microsoft is like one of those science-fiction infestations that you have to self-mutilate to rid yourself of. A threatened, sudden withdrawal of service, while good for the FOSS/Apple Rebel Alliance (TM), would be pretty catastrophic for some companies.

      The punishments I was thinking of involve the creative use of livestock.

      PS. like your blog so much I bookmarked it.

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    19. Re:1.3 billion by Blahgerton · · Score: 2, Informative

      From what I remember it was more along the lines of OS, Office and Internet. The Bush DoJ canned the idea.

    20. Re:1.3 billion by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Which MS products are you talking about?

      --
      This is blinging
    21. Re:1.3 billion by Entropius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, cry me a river for Boeing. They've had their pockets lined with overpriced military contracts (overpaying for shit that won't work anyway) for how long?

    22. Re:1.3 billion by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is going to be modded to oblivion, but isn't 1.4bn rather excessive? Don't the success of OS X and Firefox, and RealPlayer and Quicktime, indicate that MS's platform is still open enough to have competition? If there's not enough competition for people to replace MS's media player why should the EU take special measures to make it easier for the competition?
      Why not get MS to debundle notepad because it competes with UltraEdit-32? Because UltraEdit-32 is such an improvement that some people will pay for it, and if they don't then notepad is enough for their needs.

      They're opening up new anti-trust commissions as well, and they seem to be trying to force MS to debundle their media player and internet browser, as if any desktop OS on earth ships without a media browser or internet browser.

      It just seems like the EU is abusing its regulatory power to cash in. Why don't the EU bully Wal-Mart around too? As long as they put the fines lower than the profits Wal-mart rake in from Europe they have to comply.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    23. Re:1.3 billion by IndieKid · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I was thinking mainly about the OS to be honest. If someone said to our sysadmins that all new client machines (laptops etc.) coming through the door would be running Linux (for example) and that they had to make them work with the current domains that are administrated using Active Directory, use exchange servers for mail etc. I think they would have heart attacks.

      Office would be slightly less of an issue for the folks that just use Word and Excel, as they could probably get used to OpenOffice or similar. Not sure if there's an alternative for Microsoft Project and some of the other lesser used applications. There are also plenty of folks here using XML based workflows in Infopath/Sharepoint for business process type stuff, which would probably require a lot of effort to rework with non-MS products.

      Even if there are alternatives out there for all of these Microsoft products, the cost to industry of migrating would likely be huge if the sale of Microsoft products (soft licences for the most part I guess) were banned. It wouldn't have to happen immediately, as I imagine the likes of Dell etc. have got a stockpile of Microsoft licences, and many businesses would be on corporate licences that wouldn't run out straight away, but most businesses, especially in the SMB space, wouldn't have a clue where to start.

    24. Re:1.3 billion by Calinous · · Score: 1

      Whooosh!

    25. Re:1.3 billion by Calinous · · Score: 1

      What about Exchange Server?

    26. Re:1.3 billion by Calinous · · Score: 1

      The EU commission can fine up to 100% of the income from the EU market. If this won't hurt, I don't know what could.

    27. Re:1.3 billion by IndieKid · · Score: 1

      I don't really care about Microsoft getting hurt (although I guess their re-sellers would be hurt by any ban on sales), but I was thinking more about the businesses that rely on being able to buy Microsoft applications to function and the cost implications to them if they could no longer buy licences to that software. That's why I don't think the EU would ever go down the route of banning the sale of Microsoft products. Plus, the EU could probably use (read: waste) the money they'll receive from these huge fines.

    28. Re:1.3 billion by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      This is going to be modded to oblivion, but isn't 1.4bn rather excessive? Don't the success of OS X and Firefox, and RealPlayer and Quicktime, indicate that MS's platform is still open enough to have competition? If there's not enough competition for people to replace MS's media player why should the EU take special measures to make it easier for the competition?

      they violated the current EU law and had it coming, they knew it.

    29. Re:1.3 billion by node+3 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This is not about Microsoft making such great products that others can't compete, it's Microsoft using business practices which *have no bearing whatsoever on the technical quality of their products* to manipulate the market in their favor.

      In essence, Microsoft is gaming the system, breaking the free market.

      There's a point of view that what Microsoft is doing is completely rational, and that the problem isn't what MS is doing, but that their competitors *don't* do those things, and instead naively try to compete on technical quality and consumer appeal. While I disagree with this point of view, there's one aspect I can agree with, which is that MS is acting rationally. What the EU is doing (or should be doing) is imposing such extreme restrictions and/or fines on MS that it is no longer rational for them to abuse their position the way they do.

      That's why the answer to:

      isn't 1.4bn rather excessive Is no. In fact, it may by too low, if it's insufficient to get MS to change their ways.
    30. Re:1.3 billion by Calinous · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Flamebait, but I'll bite.
            First, the US Department of Justice decided Microsoft was a monopoly, so the European Union could very well take this for granted (the supervision for Microsoft as an monopoly is still active, with a recent two years added span).
            Second, while the EU might fund Airbus, Boeing is an equal competitor to Airbus (at about equal size). Microsoft doesn't have competition of similar size - not even in a tenth of their size.
            If an european citizen would be fined for parking in New York, those money would go toward reducing the taxes paid by the US citizens, increasing their capacity to compete against the Europeans.
            I think the americans lost the stomach for competing against Microsoft in its main area of expertise: Novell Netware is just a shadow of its former past (and Windows networks dethroned it), I haven't heard lately news about Word Perfect (once leader of the word processing world), Netscape (once leader of web browser world), let's not even talk about Winsock Trumpet. I even remember a Corel Linux (rumours say Microsoft paid them out of the idea).
            Microsoft's idea of "laissez faire" competition is to be alone in the world, and had taken steps for this (why buy now OS/2 when you can wait one year for our new Windows Chicago). For better or worse, OS/2 - once a competitor of Windows - is out of the marketplace for good.

    31. Re:1.3 billion by eonlabs · · Score: 1

      Probably lining someones pockets or lighting someone else's cigars, but what if it was put to standards R&D.

      Thoughts on using the money to lock down open patents on standards and techniques so they can be used by all and have a fixed form of prior art that can't be patented over?

      If not to line someone else's pockets, what would you have them do with the money?

      Just a thought...

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    32. Re:1.3 billion by MrSteveSD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The EU should give the money to FOSS projects as an extra punishment :)

    33. Re:1.3 billion by mollymoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What the hell does "the success of OS X and Firefox, and RealPlayer and Quicktime" have to do with the price Microsoft charge for interface documentation for workgroup servers? That is what Microsoft have been fined for - failure to comply with the 2004 judgment, which "required Microsoft to disclose interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers at a reasonable price".

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    34. Re:1.3 billion by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      I think it would severely hurt industry across the EU if the sale of Microsoft products were banned, especially since the EU has to deal with the rest of the world who for the most part use Microsoft products. It's just not possible for free/open source software to inter-operate effectively with Microsoft products at the moment, which was kind of the whole point of the anti-trust ruling. If Microsoft products were banned in the EU, that would be Microsoft's problem and nobody elses. Of course if that happened then FOSS software should better document their interfaces or risk a fine :-)
    35. Re:1.3 billion by twistedsymphony · · Score: 1

      I think it would severely hurt industry across the EU if the sale of Microsoft products were banned, especially since the EU has to deal with the rest of the world who for the most part use Microsoft products. It's just not possible for free/open source software to inter-operate effectively with Microsoft products at the moment, which was kind of the whole point of the anti-trust ruling.
      That's a good point, but consider how much of a wake up call that would be to most businesses. Maybe even if the EU threatened to pull the plug on MS product sales it would get companies to start thinking about what that means and how dependent they become when they purchase close/anti-competitive software. Even if they barred sales of the software for a day/week/month before lifting it (for the sake of the economy) in the case that MS calls their bluff. It would seriously hurt MS but wouldn't have any major effects on business beyond scaring them to hell.
    36. Re:1.3 billion by nacturation · · Score: 1

      In essence, Microsoft is gaming the system, breaking the free market. So what you're saying is that Microsoft hoarded all of the freedom in the market, leaving no freedom for anyone else. If we reduce Microsoft's freedom, then this will free up more freedom for other companies to compete.
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    37. Re:1.3 billion by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is going to be modded to oblivion, but isn't 1.4bn rather excessive?

      I don't think so. The punishment has to be significant to the criminal or they are not motivated to change their behavior. To put this in perspective MS made about $9 billion in profit from selling Windows Server in the EU last year, a large portion of which would likely have gone to Linux/UNIX servers if not for MS's deliberate tying of their server and desktop OS. $1.4 billion as a fine for many years of abuse is probably significantly less than the profit MS made by breaking the law and gives MS little real incentive to change their behavior. This fine was more of a warning than anything else, indicating that the EU will fine them and keep fining them larger amounts until they comply with the law.

      Don't the success of OS X and Firefox, and RealPlayer and Quicktime, indicate that MS's platform is still open enough to have competition?

      Okay, let me try to break down your query. OS X is an OS that is only licensed in conjunction with Apple hardware. Boxed copies of it are sold, but in amounts negligible to the "Desktop Operating System" market MS has been ruled to monopolize. Further OEMs which are the primary customers for desktop OS's cannot buy OS X to include on their systems. As a result, OS X's popularity is completely irrelevant to this case.

      Firefox is likewise irrelevant as this case was about only two abuses, that is to say two products tied to their desktop OS monopoly: Windows Media Player and Windows Server.

      As for RealPlayer and Quicktime, both have been losing market share while WMP as been gaining, with WMP already holding about 65% of the streaming media market it is coming close to qualifying as yet another market monopolized by Microsoft via leveraging their OS monopoly.

      If there's not enough competition for people to replace MS's media player why should the EU take special measures to make it easier for the competition?

      Umm, I' not sure I understand that sentence. It is illegal to use one monopoly to gain market share in a separate market. MS has been using their desktop OS monopoly to gain market share in many other markets. What trends have shown is that the EU's attempt to make the media player market competitive failed miserably and were ineffective (as anyone with a brain could have told you they would be). Also, the EU's attempt to make the server market competitive has not had enough time to see if it worked or not, since it took until only a short time ago to get MS to actually obey the court order. We will see if it makes a real difference over the next few years.

      Why not get MS to debundle notepad because it competes with UltraEdit-32? Because UltraEdit-32 is such an improvement that some people will pay for it, and if they don't then notepad is enough for their needs.

      Nope. It is just that there was not an existing, competitive market for text editors at the time MS gained their OS monopoly.

      They're opening up new anti-trust commissions as well, and they seem to be trying to force MS to debundle their media player and internet browser, as if any desktop OS on earth ships without a media browser or internet browser.

      The new antitrust investigations are with regard to MS Office and IE. MS was convicted of abusing their OS monopoly to promote IE in the US, but the EU has not yet charged or punished MS, let alone required them to change their behavior. Neither the US nor EU has investigated MS with regard to MS Office since every time MS is sued with regard to MS Office they settle out of court (they settled with Novell for half a billion just 7 days after Novell filed suit)

      Your comment about what is bundled with other OS's is irrelevant. Bundling is not illegal by itself. Bundling products from one market into a product from a market you have monopolized is illegal. It is illegal for your local power company to bundle a Web

    38. Re:1.3 billion by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Which MS products are you talking about?

      Three MS products are involved in this prosecution. Their desktop OS, which has been declared a monopoly, is the first. The other two are the Windows Media Player and Windows Server OS which are being given an unfair advantage in their respective markets as a result of MS's criminal actions. I think banning MS from selling (or shipping for free) the latter two would be a fairly effective and useful punishment that would appropriately address the crime.

    39. Re:1.3 billion by node+3 · · Score: 1

      No, I'm saying Microsoft affects the market such that the benefits of a free market are unduly suppressed. The only thing you got right is that MS's freedom needs to be reduced.

    40. Re:1.3 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that is 1,8 euros in my pocket! (and for the rest of EU's 497,198,740 inhabitants) Thanks Microsoft!

    41. Re:1.3 billion by nacturation · · Score: 1

      No, I'm saying Microsoft affects the market such that the benefits of a free market are unduly suppressed. The only thing you got right is that MS's freedom needs to be reduced. But Microsoft is currently enjoying the benefits of a free market. What you propose is a regulated market that only allows certain freedoms and not others. That's not a truly free market.
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    42. Re:1.3 billion by QMO · · Score: 1

      If MS is using government protection of copyright/patent to flagrantly disregard antitrust law, adding a punishment seems inefficient and ineffective, to me.

      Instead of adding a punishment (and the cost of administering/enforcing said punishment), why not remove a government protection (and the cost of administering/enforcing said protection)?

      I think that if MS hasn't fully complied by (say) July 1, MS should no longer entitled to copyright/patent protection in the EU.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    43. Re:1.3 billion by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1

      You are right that bannig sales would have the correct effect but that is hard to implement. What about existing invetory? and buyers will simply put off their purchace rather then cancelit.

      This is what anti-trust laws allow for tripple damages. Tripple damages have an even better and more direct effect becaust it allows the sales to continue but the fine is based so that "the more sales the bigger the fine".

    44. Re:1.3 billion by node+3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But Microsoft is currently enjoying the benefits of a free market. What you propose is a regulated market that only allows certain freedoms and not others. That's not a truly free market. Yes, that's what I propose. I use the term free market because that's what others call it. There is, in reality, no such thing as a free market. It's an impossibility, as you will either have to limit it (making it not completely free) or not limit it (and thereby allowing others to limit it, again making it not completely free).
    45. Re:1.3 billion by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer to have seen Microsoft go the way of Standard Oil or "Ma Bell". The problem was, I don't think anyone in the courts at the time really understood the issue.

      I agree splitting up MS is the best solution to their antitrust abuse, but I wish it would be done better than Ma Bell. The focus for splitting up MS should be based upon preventing the same problem from recurring. The best way to fix the monopolized desktop OS market in my opinion would be splitting off the applications into one company and the services into another company and last and most critically, creating at least two companies who both have full rights to all the Windows source code and trademarks (and half the human resources) and forbidding those new companies from any nonpublic communication.

      If 2009 were the year when users could go into Walmart and buy a Dell that came bundled with Windows A (from company A) or a Sony that came bundled with Windows B (from company B), where both were forks of the Windows code base, well we'd pretty much have solved the market problem. Windows fans would have more choices and both companies could bundle whatever they felt like without worrying about antitrust issues. Mac fans could still buy Macs. OEMs would be able to invest in Linux as a competitor without worrying their investment was doomed by having to compete against a monopoly. Software developers would invest more in cross-platform coding solutions. Consumers would finally have real choices to make based upon the real merits of OS's, rather than having to deal with the many artificial problems MS introduces into other products. Standards for interoperability would also be a naturally beneficial feature for both OS vendors and and users.

      Oh well. If wishes were fishes...

    46. Re:1.3 billion by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I think they might find they didn't need as many new machines as they thought. (Of course, I'd want to immediately replace ALL the software, to eliminate compatibility problems...but then I've read the MSWind2000 EULA.)

      I'll grant that there would be short term disruption...so a better choice would be to freeze their European funds until they had paid their fines. Not to ban imports, but to confiscate the funds derived from selling them until the fines had been paid. Plus an additional amount to cover the costs involved in collecting the fines.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    47. Re:1.3 billion by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sorry. A monopolized market is not a free market. Read your Adam Smith.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    48. Re:1.3 billion by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1

      I believe there was a plan at one point to split them in three (Legal, AKA Fear

      Marketing AKA Uncertainty

      and Sales AKA Doubt
    49. Re:1.3 billion by YaroMan86 · · Score: 1

      That sounds pretty good to me. Split up Microsoft without overtly destroying their (mediocre) product line while spreading it across various related companies while keeping those company from working too closely with each other. A split up monopoly's parts working closely together is just as bad as when the monopoly was whole, except maybe now there's *more* high-ranking executives pissing all over anything. Not to say all communication should be barred.

      This is why I would vote for a candidate like Obama, because it seems more likely the split up will finally happen and that the "baby Microsofts" will be monitored appropriately, much how Bell was. The difference being there would be more effective regulation and control in that method.

    50. Re:1.3 billion by Cereal+Box · · Score: 1

      let's not even talk about Winsock Trumpet.

      Oh this is too rich. So what was Microsoft to do? Continue leaving a critical component (a TCP/IP stack) out of Windows forever?

    51. Re:1.3 billion by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 1

      "A stupid remark, you should be whipped.

      From the EU website:
      The penalty payment is paid into the EU Budget. It does not increase the budget, but reduces the contribution from Member States and so from taxpayers.
      So in deference to us paying the Microsoft tax Microsoft is paying (a small part of) EU tax, brilliant :)"

      If anyone should be wipped its you. Let me get this right, your delusions and 'reading' the EU website (Hahahaha, really trustworthy, do you read the chinese government website to learn the truth as well?). How about you keep your stupidity to yourself, the EU has failed its accounts and auditing for 13 YEARS, and has rampant corruption. How ARE you ever going to find out where this money goes or where it gets spent. EXACTLY.

      The executive arm against 'fraud' is called OLAF, its spectacular in its USELESSNESS at hunting fraud down, but pretty good at arranging to have annoying journalists who uncover fraud thrown in prison, illegally, without due process.

      --
      We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
    52. Re:1.3 billion by doktor-hladnjak · · Score: 1

      No, if Microsoft products were banned for sale in the EU, the many, many European companies and individuals that have built their IT infrastructure around those products would be furious. As much as many slashdotters hate Microsoft and their products, most people and organizations out in the real world have no interest in spending huge sums of money and amounts of time to replace their entire existing IT infrastructure with non-Microsoft alternatives. Can you imagine what would ensue if everybody in the EU had to either freeze their current use of Microsoft software and begin transitioning to other alternatives at the same time? At least in the short to mid term, it would be a financial and productivity disaster for most large companies. Such a move would result in national governments intervening to fundamentally alter the EU governmental institutions that were responsible. It would weaken the European Commission's ability to deal with anti-trust issues in the future substantially.

    53. Re:1.3 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Linux, OSX, Firefox gaining marketshare is great, but still microsoft has well over 90% of desktop OS share:

      http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8#

      And IE has over 75% of marketshare in browsers:

      http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0

      This is enough for MS to still be considered and treated as being in a monopoly position...

    54. Re:1.3 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The path Microsoft took is covered with the dead bodies of its would be competitors. Coincidence?

    55. Re:1.3 billion by sepluv · · Score: 1

      Actually, per Article 15 (2) of Regulation 17, they can only issue fines up to a maximum of 10% of turnover, as well as a further 5% of turnover for every day the original fine is not paid. See the guidelines for fining.

      --
      Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
      [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
    56. Re:1.3 billion by ignavus · · Score: 1

      In other words, Europe wants a refund of the Microsoft monopoly rent that it paid over the last couple of decades.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    57. Re:1.3 billion by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      Free market is like communism. Utopia. Communism is not feasible in scales larger than a very small community(like a family).
      Free market is utopia above utopias in current mass consumption driven global market. Maybe possible at the small marketplace somewhere in Kenya :)

    58. Re:1.3 billion by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      The use of the name 'Windows' should also be prevented. Whichever branch that got the name would dominate again very quickly

    59. Re:1.3 billion by dbIII · · Score: 1

      administrated using Active Directory, use exchange servers for mail

      It's the mutate and lock in problem - a weird LDAP variant (ok, weirder than usual LDAP then) and an odd implentation of a mail server with a few bits attached to drive a centralised calendar keeps you on their products or forever playing catch up. The answer is not to have a poorly implemented clone of a poorly implemented clone but to have something that does the same task without the extra complications. This means expensively replacing a lot of things in one hit - effectively meaning that you are stuck with the platform until MS drop it and you have no choice.

    60. Re:1.3 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically, the fine adds 899 billion euros to the balance, which means that the member states need to pay less.

      How else would you handle fines? Burn the money?

    61. Re:1.3 billion by Anspen · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's a ongoing fine. From reading TFA and a few others the situation seems te be that Microsoft is being fined for dragging their feet on the implementation of the judgement (and for not following the spirit of the requirement at all by demanding redicilous payments and royalty fees).

      I'd guess that they're also being fined to teach them a lesson not to do it again if the new invenstigations result in anything.

    62. Re:1.3 billion by Descalzo · · Score: 1

      why not remove a government protection (and the cost of administering/enforcing said protection)?
      Because this way, the government gets to spend 1.3 billion Euros.
      --
      I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
  4. And what if not? by mapkinase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder what happens if MS ignores that order as well... They won't be able to ban Microsoft products, I guess.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:And what if not? by 1001011010110101 · · Score: 1

      I guess they won't be able to run their business in the EU.
      Thats a pretty big market, I bet the shareholders won't be happy.

    2. Re:And what if not? by viraltus · · Score: 1

      Not ban, but I guess they would freeze every bank account and take over any income they might have on Europe which is a lot more than the fine.

      --
      Dear /. CENSORS that set people's Karma to Neutral when you disagree with them: FUCK YOU!!
    3. Re:And what if not? by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      Yes they will, in europe anyway. And it's never a good idea to just defy one of the most powerful world governments and try to hide behind international politics-- what happens when your employees learn that they have to cancel that trip to europe?

    4. Re:And what if not? by schon · · Score: 1

      They won't be able to ban Microsoft products, I guess. Why would they need to?

      They could just be like any other government entity and confiscate MS's property.

      Hmm, now I wonder just what MS has that's worth $1.3B? Windows/Office copyright perhaps?
    5. Re:And what if not? by Teun · · Score: 1

      They won't be able to ban Microsoft products, I guess. Why not?
      Or Europe could cancel some of the offending copy rights and thus enable the long sought interoperability.
      (Software patents are supposed to be of zero value in Europe)
      As this would give European companies a big advantage in competition a wonder what the USofA would do...
      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    6. Re:And what if not? by andy_t_roo · · Score: 1

      Revoke microsoft copyright of affected products (win xp, older office) might be one way to go, given how poorly vista and office 2007 are being received this would cut more revenue than the fine would, and would set an interesting precedent ...

    7. Re:And what if not? by red+star+hardkore · · Score: 1

      That won't happen. Microsoft is one of the biggest employers in Ireland and if they were banned from the EU then there would be thousands of unemployed Irish people. That would create a huge backlash of anti-EU feelings and seeing as Ireland is the only country who is going to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (Ireland are the only nation to have referendums for EU treaties), the EU would want to be quite nice to Ireland (Irish people have a habit of voting No to EU treaties).

    8. Re:And what if not? by PYRILAMPES · · Score: 1

      Compliance? They will likely just buy the EU, sell off its parts, then retain the legal entity they owe the money too, and write it off their tax bill. That way they don't have to change strategy. The interesting part is that once they buy the EU they will make sure it is no longer compatible with other countries that don't use their media player. Tourists will have to break a plastic tape with a Eula to enter the country.

    9. Re:And what if not? by asuffield · · Score: 5, Informative

      The EU will simply take the money by force. Microsoft has assets moving through the EU, in the form of their revenue from sales of their products. The EU will walk in to the retail outlets and take that revenue until they have their money - the money from every copy of Windows and every xbox sold will go directly to the EU, and Microsoft will never receive it. This is the standard method that courts use for extracting fines from recalcitrant corporations - you don't ban their products, you just take their products.

      And they'll keep doing it for as long as it takes.

    10. Re:And what if not? by Richthofen80 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Probably a terrible precendent, actually. Imagine some off-brand European retailer selling 'Windows XP' that they've compiled and pressed to disk. People would think they're getting A Microsoft Product but actually its someone else who made it. Then Microsoft's reputation would be tarnished if the copy is bad.

      If I built soapbox racers in my garage at home and branded them BMW, then someone lost a head in a collision in my not-quite-safe car, don't you think that BMW would be less than thrilled?

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    11. Re:And what if not? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "That happens when your employees learn that they have to cancel that trip to europe" I do not think that is likely to happen. Microsoft might be evil, but ordinary employees are definitely not.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    12. Re:And what if not? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ireland are the only nation to have referendums for EU treaties
      O RLY?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:And what if not? by z80kid · · Score: 5, Funny
      People would think they're getting A Microsoft Product but actually its someone else who made it. Then Microsoft's reputation would be tarnished if the copy is bad.

      You were shooting for +5 funny, right?

    14. Re:And what if not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, Microsoft's reputation is already bad. Frankly, your soap-box analogy is more like, "what if I sold bicycles as trebants or yugos? people wouldn't be any worse off."

    15. Re:And what if not? by red+star+hardkore · · Score: 1, Informative

      YES RLY... That's a constituion, I said Treaties. There's a difference.

      Other EU countries may have referendums on treaties sometimes but their govs can make the decision themselves, but Ireland are required by our own constitution to have a referendum every time.

    16. Re:And what if not? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Well if BMW had forfeited the right to their brand as settlement of unpaid fines (or had it confiscated in lieu thereof) you might have a point.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:And what if not? by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If microsoft defies the EU and refuses to pay the fine, their executives in the EU would certainly be arrested...

    18. Re:And what if not? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      If they copyright weren't valid anymore, why would the off-brand European retailer go through the trouble of making his own version? He could just sell copies of the real thing and save the effort.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    19. Re:And what if not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then Microsoft's reputation would be tarnished if the copy is bad.

      Ha ha ha ha.


      1:1 copy will probably not suck more than the original...
    20. Re:And what if not? by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Probably a terrible precendent, actually. Imagine some off-brand European retailer selling 'Windows XP' that they've compiled and pressed to disk. People would think they're getting A Microsoft Product but actually its someone else who made it. Then Microsoft's reputation would be tarnished if the copy is bad.

      If I built soapbox racers in my garage at home and branded them BMW, then someone lost a head in a collision in my not-quite-safe car, don't you think that BMW would be less than thrilled?

      OTOH, pirate copies of Windows and Office are known to work much better than The Original Thing(TM).

      The only thing Microsoft should be afraid of is that the off-brand retailer should improve Microsoft's reputation, then demand pay for services rendered.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    21. Re:And what if not? by marzipanic · · Score: 1

      We live in hope though!

      I am not surprised and does a Leopard (or a Window in this case) ever change it's spots?

      We shall see

      Viva La Resistance - Hail Open Sourcery!

      --
      In the name of sticking up for someone with autism, f**k you! Prejudiced bastard.... that is unlawful and linuc for dumm
    22. Re:And what if not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Microsoft are repeat offenders. Most repeat offenders are given harsher and harsher punishment, finally ending in life in prison. Why should miccrosoft be any different? Lock up the head honchos, disband the company and sell the assets.

    23. Re:And what if not? by boaworm · · Score: 4, Funny

      Then Microsoft's reputation would be tarnished if the copy is bad. Are you insinuating that there is actually a copy of a Microsoft product that isn't bad?
      --
      Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
      Aristotele
    24. Re:And what if not? by lloydchristmas759 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmm, now I wonder just what MS has that's worth $1.3B? Windows/Office copyright perhaps?
      You messed things up: MS would actually have to pay anyone much more that 1.3B$ to give him Vista copyright.
      --
      I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
    25. Re:And what if not? by LinuxDon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Microsoft WILL comply, or the consequences will be enormous.
      The fines will just keep increasing until they can't afford not to comply. And if they don't pay, bank accounts will be frozen etc etc. If that doesn't do it, the company will eventually be declared bankrupt and their assets will be sold to the highest bidders.

      In contrast to what the MS fanboys say about the subject, they will not get away with non compliance as they did in the US.
      EU politicians *cannot* be bought and they will not be scared by threats of MS leaving Europe. Not that I believe MS would make such a threat, which would be extremely stupid and would make all of their customers run.

      I strongly believe that MS will just pay the fines and start complying and everyone will just be happy in the end. :)

    26. Re:And what if not? by sepluv · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hmm, now I wonder just what MS has that's worth $1.3B? Windows/Office copyright perhaps?
      Declaring their copyrights fair game would definitely be an absolute last resort. It would effectively be the same as outlawing MS. It would also probably go against international treaties and piss off the US of A.


      This judgement seems pretty final (MS has been showing contempt for the court for years) so, to answer the question, I'm guessing if MS don't pay up now, the EC will just freeze their EU bank accounts, and rumour has it that Microsoft keeps most of its money in Ireland as a tax dodge. I guess they could raid their offices and take away their furniture (or what's left since Ballmer's last European trip) too, but that would be messy and not too cost effective—I'm sure MS has billions in the bank.

      --
      Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
      [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
    27. Re:And what if not? by clickclickdrone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >The EU will simply take the money by force
      I know it's an alien concept to American's, what with us Eurpeens being commies and all that and American firms usually being allowed to do what they want as long as they grease a few palms but what usually happens is:
      1. A law is enacted
      2. A firm ignores it.
      3. They get fined
      4. They pay the fine.

      In the UK last week a few multi million pound fines got dished out to various big companies (this was from watchdogs rather than the EU though) and it's pretty much a given they'll pay up.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    28. Re:And what if not? by macslas'hole · · Score: 1

      What you are talking about is Trademark, not Copyright. And BMW shouldn't care less if you build soapbox racers and brand them "BMW", as soapbox racers are not automobiles, and BMW doesn't market soapbox racers. Different markets = Different trademarks.

      --
      Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
    29. Re:And what if not? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is the first time a company don't respect the orders of this institution (which only has 50 years of age) and this is the biggest fine it ever produced. Nobody knows what would happen if Microsoft was planning not paying but I guess it could be raided by European IRS. I mean it is tax money. Many people who lack a sense of humor are serious about it.

      A ban would be a first as well but I think they'll just keep on doubling the fine every year...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    30. Re:And what if not? by cabjoe · · Score: 1
      Irish people have a habit of voting No to EU treaties

      We voted No to the Nice treaty once. When the government told us we got the answer wrong we meekly voted Yes the next time. Every other treaty we've passed by a 2 to 1 ratio or thereabouts. I wouldn't call that a habit of voting No.

      Also, I don't know about the big backlash against the EU if they did force Microsoft to stop business in the EU. I reckon you'd see quite a few people voting yes for finally seeing politicians having a bit of backbone. Or maybe that'd be just me...

      --
      If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor.
    31. Re:And what if not? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      If I built soapbox racers in my garage at home and branded them BMW


      Building a soapbox racer hardly a fair comparison to modifying an OS. For one thing, when people modify windows, they generally end up with something better than the original.
    32. Re:And what if not? by zakeria · · Score: 1

      Well it wont happen because MS won't really notice the money being taken, it happens over a period of time and come out mainly from sale's tax. pennies!

    33. Re:And what if not? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1, Insightful

      EU politicians *cannot* be bought and they will not be scared by threats of MS leaving Europe

      Actually they can so easily be bought.. there's been quite a few cash scandals for years now. (disclaimer: I don't think this is true - I only read what they tell me in the newspapers)

      I think the difference is that the EU politicians cannot be bought by an American company, there's no amount of "freedom" cash a "cheese-eating surrender" politician will accept to take Microsoft's side in anything.

    34. Re:And what if not? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ratification of the constitution is a treaty - it's the national government agreeing to be bound by it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    35. Re:And what if not? by penix1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem I have with fines in general is they do no real harm to companies. The cost of the fine is then funneled back into the price tag of the product and considered a "cost of doing business". It's you and me that get screwed in the end with higher prices to cover losses in fines.

      A more interesting concept would be to have a major portion of the fines go to Microsoft's competetors. It was they who were harmed by Microsoft's actions. Just think how a few hundred million would benefit FOSS projects in Europe.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    36. Re:And what if not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That won't happen. Microsoft is one of the biggest employers in Ireland and if they were banned from the EU then... Hostages. That is what happens in the US. Big pharmaceutical companies have research centers in all of the key states. When any of those states considers legislation that big pharma doesn't like, the threat is that research center in that state will close -- eliminating thousands of high-paying jobs. As a result, prices are kept artificially high which is just what big pharma wants.

      MS can try the same ploy in Europe, but I don't think it will be anywhere near as effective as what they got away with in the US.
    37. Re:And what if not? by QBasicer · · Score: 2, Funny

      I guess the EU would keep taking money, and then give it to the people. It's like a modern day robin hood!

      --
      x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
    38. Re:And what if not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They will likely just buy the EU, sell off its parts, then retain the legal entity they owe the money too

      The EU has a GDP of $14,953 billion. Microsoft couldn't even buy Estonia, if their continued existence depended on it.

    39. Re:And what if not? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I'll believe it when I see it. Everything in Microsoft's experience has taught them that there's always another chance, some way to stall until political conditions become more favorable. That's why it has come to this.

    40. Re:And what if not? by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The cost of the fine is then funneled back into the price tag of the product and considered a "cost of doing business". It's you and me that get screwed in the end with higher prices to cover losses in fines.
      No, that's just a scare tactic companies advance to get the public on their side. If it were true, companies wouldn't put up a legal fight to resist fines. The cost of production (including fines) isn't directly related to the retail price. Their price was already whatever they thought would maximize revenue, just as it will be going forward.
    41. Re:And what if not? by mike2R · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There have been incidents of outright corruption, true. But if Microsoft started passing cash in brown paper envelopes they'd be in real trouble.

      What Europe doesn't have is the legal "corruption" of corporations financing politicians campaigns' in exchange for favours - which is what grandparent was alluding to I think, and the primary reason Microsoft doesn't have the sort of influence it does in the US.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    42. Re:And what if not? by mea37 · · Score: 1

      I haven't looked into this, but don't you suspect that maybe the EU has copyright treaties with the US? Would the EU really want to risk the US refusing to recognize European copyrights (either across the board or at the US government's discretion)? I doubt it, and if not, that probably means they have to respect US copyrights, even when those copyrights belong to companies who are "misbehaving".

      If MS were to continue ignoring the EU rulings, I beleive their next recourse would be to deny MS the right to operate in the European market. Companies you might think are "big enough to be above the law" have nonetheless had to bow to that pressure.

    43. Re:And what if not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the vista code is like the Arc of the Covenant, you can't look at it straight in the eye or your face will melt off....

    44. Re:And what if not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Europe could cancel some of the offending copy rights and thus enable the long sought interoperability.
      (Software patents are supposed to be of zero value in Europe)
      As this would give European companies a big advantage in competition a wonder what the USofA would do...


      They wouldn't go down that road as the U.S. would find a convenient EU technology company and zero their copyrights as well (based on whatever contrived reason they come up with). I think SAP AG would like to keep their IP rights.

    45. Re:And what if not? by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Apparently the EU makes a lot of exceptions when it comes to Microsoft. They seem to be working on an entire Applicable-Only-To-Microsoft body of law, like the whole "When MS bundles a web browser, it's bad and teh evil, but when Apple does it, or Teh Lunix does it, it's a great feature!" lawsuit they are pushing. Same thing with the lawsuit MS lost, in which apparently it's teh evil when a Microsoft operating system includes a means of watching video... but it's a really great innovation when when Apple or Teh Lunix do it (and especially when Apple ties it in to an entire store, and a line of portable devices, too).

      The EU must view Microsoft as this really great cash cow for them, and every year or so they can simply extort a few billion from them.

      I don't know who modded Insightful such an obvious Flamebait, but since I have a few minutes to burn, I'll bite.

      When Microsoft bundles a web browser or a media player with the OS, we're talking about leveraging a monopoly in one area to gain market dominance (or even another monopoly) in another, i.e. abuse of monopoly.
      Neither Apple nor Linux vendors are in a position to do something like that, so your point is moot.
      And BTW, Linux distributions do not bundle just one browser; if some do, they do not all pick the same one. So your point is even mooter.

      From the know-nothing parent post:

      OTOH, pirate copies of Windows and Office are known to work much better than The Original Thing(TM).

      Umm... no. I don't know where you are getting your bullshit ideas from, but pirated copies of Windows and Office are not "know to work much better" than legit copies. Feel free to cite a source on that one.

      Pirated copies work just the same as regular ones and are able to download updates, yet do not have WGA.
      Therefore they are never reported by the WGA as illegitimate and subsequently deactivated, which has happened to users of legitimate copies on at least two occasions.
      I'd call it a Q.E.D.

      The only thing Microsoft should be afraid of is that the off-brand retailer should improve Microsoft's reputation, then demand pay for services rendered.

      Well, despite over a decade of Teh Lunix trying to make a "wanna-be Windows", this supposed better OS maker hasn't materialized yet. Teh Lunix, in all flavors, has a marketshare under 2%. Vista exceeded the Lunix installed base on it's first day of commercial release. The iPhone now has a larger install base than Teh Lunix. Please note, all the hot new products are closed source, and stay as far away from FOSSies and Stallmanistas as humanly possible.

      Apples and oranges.

      Linux is only a still rather insignificant minority in the desktop market.
      The server market and the embedded market are quite a different story.

      If you have complaints about MS's support, it's pretty obvious you've never dealt with them in a professional capacity. I've been working in IT for over 10 years, and any contact I've had with Microsoft has been great. Well, except for having to call them to activate Windows when it wouldn't work over the internet, that was just boring. But it was very brief, so overall it wasn't a big deal.

      Pirated copies, I repeat once again, never require activation and henceforth I've had no need to contact Microsoft's support and suffer endless minutes of elevator music.

      So... where's these really awesome, must-have things coming from the FOSS community? Any really big and fun games? And by games, I don't mean text editors (which is a pity, because Teh Lunix has at least a million different text editors). Despite the delusional FOSS talking points, I just can't see any tangible results of FOSS even existing, much less being an influence in the marketplace (either financial or intellectual).

      Oh, if it's a gaming platform yo

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    46. Re:And what if not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Umm... no. I don't know where you are getting your bullshit ideas from, but pirated copies of Windows and Office are not "know to work much better" than legit copies. Feel free to cite a source on that one."

      Option to install Win2K pro, Win2K server etc all in one bootable CD.

      Slipstreamed with patches (and unlike typical legit preinstalls - no Symantec/McAfee crap :) ).

      So convenient that some unnamed people use these installers, with legit keys even though they have legit CDs- only need to carry one CD :).

    47. Re:And what if not? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      How precisely would canceling copyrights suddenly enable interoperability - the source code wouldn't magically appear on someones desk.

    48. Re:And what if not? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Declaring their copyrights fair game would definitely be an absolute last resort. It would effectively be the same as outlawing MS. It would also probably go against international treaties and piss off the US of A.

      Confiscating some copyright and making it public domain would not outlaw MS. It would just kill a huge chunk of their sales. MS would undoubtedly just release a new version of each that was different, and charge for that version. The main difference is they would have to make it significantly better than the old versions in order to motivate sales. (You know like companies in non-monopolized market do.)

      As for violating treaties, seizing intellectual property assets from criminals has been done in plenty of Berne signatory countries including the US. I doubt that any of the copyrights were for as widely distributed works, but that is just a matter of degree, not principal. As for the rest of your post, you're probably right. It is a lot less messy to simply seize their money from a bank.

    49. Re:And what if not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      won't they just appeal and get the fine reduced, like always seems to happen with these corporate lawsuits?

    50. Re:And what if not? by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      Who cares about pissing of the USA? Weak and falling currency, weak and falling manufacturing industry. And they can't threaten us as we have enough nukes to take out the USA several times over.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    51. Re:And what if not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trademark != copyright

    52. Re:And what if not? by bondjamesbond · · Score: 0

      Surely, surely, surely you're not saying that Microsoft products are the BMWs of the technology industry??

    53. Re:And what if not? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      If microsoft defies the EU and refuses to pay the fine, their executives in the EU would certainly be arrested... There are other possibilities. Just as an example, Dell owes Microsoft quite a bit of money every year. So after confiscating all the furniture in all Microsoft offices in Europe, the EU would then make a phone call to Dell: "All that money you owe to Microsoft, send that to the EU, please... ". When that happens, Dell will either pay or close business in Europe. If they close business in Europe, then HP gets the same phone call, and so on, until you can buy nothing but Macs and Linux machines in Europe.
    54. Re:And what if not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, go after the users of micro$oft products. A monthly/yearly tax for each micro$oft product you or your company uses.
      Eventually people and companies will get tired of paying micro$ofts debt and stop using micro$oft products and use somthing else like Linux!

    55. Re:And what if not? by maxume · · Score: 1

      You mean that they would be forced to stop doing business in EU controlled regions. At the moment, the U.S. government would not liquidate Microsoft in order to make the EU happy. Probably never.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    56. Re:And what if not? by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Apparently the EU makes a lot of exceptions when it comes to Microsoft. They seem to be working on an entire Applicable-Only-To-Microsoft body of law, like the whole "When MS bundles a web browser, it's bad and teh evil, but when Apple does it, or Teh Lunix does it, it's a great feature!"
      What a load!

      On Linux (and probably apple, I wouldn't know) you can uninstall ANY application. You CAN NOT uninstall IE because it is part of the operating system. This makes programs such as MSN rely on IE being there because they force users to use IE instead of the default browser when you click check mail. It wouldn't be any harder for MSN to use the default browser but they don't because they're abusing their monopoly!
    57. Re:And what if not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have paid then appealed last fines. Likely the same process here.

      How many /. MBAs would be willing to give up 7% of your profit in exchange for a global monopoly?

      Hell, I'd give up 33%

    58. Re:And what if not? by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The EU wouldn't call Dell or HP, they'd call the bank in charge of MS's accounts or they'd confiscate physical assets MS owns.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    59. Re:And what if not? by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they could declare revoke all protection of MS's software licenses and allow anyone anywhere to do with it as they please. Really not something MS would want.

    60. Re:And what if not? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Increasing the price tag on the product doesn't increase profits, otherwise they'd already have done so. The higher the price the lower the sales and above a certain price any further increases decrease the profit. Unless a fine is something like "30% of all sales" it doesn't affect the optimum price and the company would be stupid to change the price of the product in response.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    61. Re:And what if not? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Yeah but if MS were to lose the European market (in all ways, including Windows, Office and the XBox 360) that's not just lost sales, that's a fertile ground for competitors to build a large userbase. If Europe couldn't get Windows another OS would establish itself and that other OS would find itself with a userbase of maybe a hundred million people (not sure how many computer users there are in the EU). That's a big market and software vendors won't be able to release only Windows versions of their software if they don't want to lose the EU market. Imagine Linux getting as much support as Windows for consumer-level software, it'd make Linux a much more viable choice for the average home user and destroy Windows's monopoly on home software. MS would lose their iron grip on the PC market and probably see lots of Linux machines being set up in other regions too.

      IOW, losing the EU would hurt MS everywhere.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    62. Re:And what if not? by Random+Web+Developer · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between 10+ different cultures with very much different cultures agreeing on a constitution and 10+ countries on passing a law.

      I can see how it's complicated if you are not used to hearing about it in the news every day, but for example, the uk respects a lot of eu laws, but doesn't use the euro etc.

      every country has its own laws, which might differ from the european laws but are largely aligned with it

      --
      Artists against online scams http://www.aa419.org/
    63. Re:And what if not? by sepluv · · Score: 1

      And they can't threaten us as we have enough nukes to take out the USA several times over.

      Of course anyone who thinks anyone is going to start a war over MS is probably on drugs and has recently been reading World War 3.0 (and taken it way too literally).


      Leaving that aside, although you maybe right, there is no EU army (yet); and many of the members's states governments love to suck up to the US's current regime, are in the US-controlled NATO military coalition and their nukes were sold to them by the US government along with US proprietary launch software to which the US still holds the over-ride sequences (or worse still, the US gov requires a day's notice to hand over the launch codes to the nukes they sold them). Most importantly the US have many times more nukes than all the European countries put together, I heard enough to destroy the planet four times over, and Bush is the guy behind the big red button so what makes you think he won't use that power so he can gloat about winning the war when he meets us all in the next life.

      --
      Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
      [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
    64. Re:And what if not? by maxume · · Score: 1

      That depends on whether the EU banned the sale of Microsoft products, or simply prevented Microsoft from operating in the EU. If someone else was importing their software, confiscating it wouldn't hurt Microsoft any.

      My point was more that the EU can't actually bankrupt Microsoft, not that they are toothless.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    65. Re:And what if not? by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Your flamingo-riding flamelancers are no match for us.

    66. Re:And what if not? by KevinIsOwn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've seen this argued in a number of places, including the FairTax book. To an extent it is correct, however this isn't a reason not to fine corporations. Simply put, in non-monopoly situations the free market sets the price, not the corporation. This means that if a corporation is fined and raises prices as a result, its competitors benefit because they do not have to raise prices. If the company that gets fined does not raise their prices, then their margins go down (which means less profits or even possibly write downs).

      So lets apply this to Microsoft and then the free market in general. In this case Microsoft will have to pay lots of money to the EU. If they attempt to pass this cost on to consumers, it will strengthen OS X, Linux, Solaris, etc as alternatives to Windows. This means that in the case of Microsoft monopolizing the market, the EU fine can accomplish its task of lessening Microsoft's stake in the market if it is large enough. But if they have full control of the market, well that's why governments reserve the right to break companies up. If a fine would not be sufficient to punish a company, they could be split into smaller companies that would have to compete against each other.

      So in the end, it isn't necessary to give the fines to Microsoft's competitors as you propose. Simply the act of fining Microsoft should be enough to help its competitors out.

    67. Re:And what if not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU cannot revoke their copyright. They would have to get the approval of the WTO.

    68. Re:And what if not? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the vista code is like the Arc of the Covenant, you can't look at it straight in the eye or your face will melt off.... No. That's why microsoft is such a big defender of so-called "IP" law.

      It's the only thing that keeps it from becoming widely known that Vista is the result of piping the R'lyeh phonebook through a compiler
    69. Re:And what if not? by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 1


      "YES RLY... That's a constituion, I said Treaties. There's a difference."

      Really, whats the difference? The majority of informed information from people not lying is that this is the constitution renamed, but between 95-99% the same.

      "Other EU countries may have referendums on treaties sometimes but their govs can make the decision themselves, but Ireland are required by our own constitution to have a referendum every time."

      So is Denmark, but they cheated to avoid fulfilling that requirement. If Ireland says No, it will be told to vote again, and again until it comes up with the right answer. Maybe you forgot, but last time they told the Irish to vote again, and remember, 'You will leave the east suffering forever if you dare say no this time'. Also, as its the same document, just renamed, change the font so it changes page length, and a couple of other tweaks, from a moral standpoint, everyone promised a vote on it, or referendums should have one. But people would say no (Again), and derail the 'Project'. And we can't possibly have that now can we?

      --
      We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
    70. Re:And what if not? by YaroMan86 · · Score: 1
      Good fucking lord.

      Apparently the EU makes a lot of exceptions when it comes to Microsoft. They seem to be working on an entire Applicable-Only-To-Microsoft body of law, like the whole "When MS bundles a web browser, it's bad and teh evil, but when Apple does it, or Teh Lunix does it, it's a great feature!" lawsuit they are pushing. Same thing with the lawsuit MS lost, in which apparently it's teh evil when a Microsoft operating system includes a means of watching video... but it's a really great innovation when when Apple or Teh Lunix do it (and especially when Apple ties it in to an entire store, and a line of portable devices, too).

      1. The EU has been pissed off about Media Player, not Internet Explorer.
      2. Microsoft was leveraging its position as a desktop monopoly to force people into using said web browser.
      3. The difference between Linux distribution developers and Microsoft is they aren't bundling their own browser in the first place, whereas Microsoft is bundling their own browser with their own operating system. As far as I can tell, Mozilla never made an operating system, yet they make the somewhat more common Linux browser.
      4. You can uninstall and install other web browsers at will. What does Microsoft offer? A forced web browser that you can't uninstall. 5. I don't recall too many Linux developers taking credit for *creating* their 'innovative' technologies, unlike Microsoft, which takes something, rebrands it, and tries to act like it was their own creation.

      The EU must view Microsoft as this really great cash cow for them, and every year or so they can simply extort a few billion from them.

      Little comment there, except I think fining a corrupt organization is hardly an extortion, I don't care how much they actually fine.

      Umm... no. I don't know where you are getting your bullshit ideas from, but pirated copies of Windows and Office are not "know to work much better" than legit copies. Feel free to cite a source on that one.

      Sure, I understand you mean it doesn't improve the mediocre quality of the system itself. What it does do, however, is circumvent God awful anti-piracy "features" Microsoft throws in there like product keys and WGA, which have done more harm than good. Don't get me wrong, I don't like piracy either, but there are just really stupid ideas and Microsoft software tends to be loaded with them: WGA, Clippy, Microsoft Bob, on and on.

      Well, despite over a decade of Teh Lunix trying to make a "wanna-be Windows", this supposed better OS maker hasn't materialized yet. Teh Lunix, in all flavors, has a marketshare under 2%. Vista exceeded the Lunix installed base on it's first day of commercial release. The iPhone now has a larger install base than Teh Lunix. Please note, all the hot new products are closed source, and stay as far away from FOSSies and Stallmanistas as humanly possible.

      Where the hell do you get the idea that Linux is trying to be like Windows in any remote way? And don't feed me "GNOME and KDE" bullshit. Those aren't strictly Linux, they're just commonly used by it. CLIs? BASH couldn't be anymore different than DOS. (And again, BASH isn't strictly Linux either.) As for market share, I don't think people inside or outside of FOSS give a flying fuck that their OS is actually *popular.* You also ignore the fact that there are cases where FOSS beats the trash out of proprietary, Including Apache and Linux as a server platform. LAMP stack, anyone? As for "Stallmanism," get a grip. Sure, the guy is one of the most important FOSSies out there, but I don't really care for him. (GPL, sure, just not Stallman himself.) I think most FOSSies are smart enough not to be force-fed by big companies which have a habit of telling people what they like as opposed to pitching their product. Give me Linux over Windows any day. Firefox over Internet Ex

    71. Re:And what if not? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between 10+ different cultures with very much different cultures agreeing on a constitution and 10+ countries on passing a law.
      In practical terms there's very little difference. Where that constitution states that each country surrenders its sovereignty, i.e. that EU law trumps national law, there's even less.

      I can see how it's complicated if you are not used to hearing about it in the news every day,
      My, how patronising.

      but for example, the uk respects a lot of eu laws, but doesn't use the euro etc.
      My, how irrelevant. There is no EU wide law mandating use of the Euro, and the UK isn't the only country in the EU that doesn't.

      every country has its own laws, which might differ from the european laws but are largely aligned with it
      Wrong. When the EU passes a law every country in the EU is obliged to pass their own law which is effectively a translation and restatement of it.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    72. Re:And what if not? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The problem I have with fines in general is they do no real harm to companies. The cost of the fine is then funneled back into the price tag of the product and considered a "cost of doing business". It's you and me that get screwed in the end with higher prices to cover losses in fines.

      Assuming that companies are trying to maximize their profits, this is not true. The price is already whatever brings them most income; there is no room for rising it.

      The argument that a company "tunnels" its fines to its customers requires one to assume that the company isn't already taking as much money as it could from said customers, and that is not a reasonable assumption about a for-profit company. No, the ones who get hit by the fine are shareholders, which is as it should be; after all, they are the ones who got the ill-gained profits.

      Each and every company already screws its customers as much as it can. Getting bitchslapped doesn't give them any more metaphorical sexual prowess.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    73. Re:And what if not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then Microsoft's reputation would be tarnished if the copy is bad.

      Are you insinuating that there is actually a copy of a Microsoft product that isn't bad?

      What about the ones that cannot install?

      (drummer plays rimshot)

      Thank you. I'll be here all week.

    74. Re:And what if not? by dwye · · Score: 1

      A more interesting concept would be to have a major portion of the fines go to Microsoft's competetors. It was they who were harmed by Microsoft's actions.

      But they are dead, or died in the womb. Would you pay AOL/Time-Warner for MS killing Netscape with IE? Or whoever bought the IP rights from Digital Research? Or IBM, for OS/2? How do you identify someone who MIGHT have written a better MS Office component, but never bothered, seeing what other would-be competitors experienced?

      Just think how a few hundred million would benefit FOSS projects in Europe.

      But clearly, they haven't been hurt. How can you reduce the monetary value of code given away for nothing?

      I am sorry, but it looks like the EU budget is as good a place as any.

    75. Re:And what if not? by brre · · Score: 1
      "Politics is persuasion, government is force"

      The notion that Microsoft can take the EU's court judgement as a request demonstrates confusion on this point.

      I would not suggest that Microsoft is in any way confused, just those who come up with the enchanting idea that Microsoft has an option not to pay the fine. That was never an option. The options were to prevaricate and jawbone and stall the process and play lawyer tricks and hope the court agreed. Microsoft has now exhausted those options. Microsoft is perfectly clear on this. Happy, no, but clear, yes. Not confused.

      I suggest there's no reason for anyone else to be confused. Yes, governments have power, which they use to compel compliance. The only way to say no is to be another world government with comparable power. That Microsoft is not. Everyone clear now?

    76. Re:And what if not? by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      And they can't threaten us as we have enough nukes to take out the USA several times over.

      Of course anyone who thinks anyone is going to start a war over MS is probably on drugs and has recently been reading World War 3.0 (and taken it way too literally).


      Leaving that aside, although you maybe right, there is no EU army (yet); and many of the members's states governments love to suck up to the US's current regime, are in the US-controlled NATO military coalition and their nukes were sold to them by the US government along with US proprietary launch software to which the US still holds the over-ride sequences (or worse still, the US gov requires a day's notice to hand over the launch codes to the nukes they sold them). Most importantly the US have many times more nukes than all the European countries put together, I heard enough to destroy the planet four times over, and Bush is the guy behind the big red button so what makes you think he won't use that power so he can gloat about winning the war when he meets us all in the next life.

      We'll ask Russia for help ;)
    77. Re:And what if not? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      I wonder what happens if MS ignores that order as well... They won't be able to ban Microsoft products, I guess.

      They could always void all of Microsoft's copyrights in the EU. That would remove billions of dollars per quarter from Microsoft's revenue.

    78. Re:And what if not? by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      If Microsoft raises prices to what the EC sees as an unresonable level they will simply threaten to regulate the market, if that doesn't make Microsoft drop it's pricetag the EC will go in and regulate Microsoft's pricetag, most likely forcing the price down to a much lower level than it would have accepted if Microsoft had taken the hint when they threatened with regulation.

      This will put Microsoft in a rather unfavorable position on the European market because they will still have the fines leveled against them and in addition they will not be able to raise the pricetag on their product without permission from the European Council.

  5. Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by wellingtonsteve · · Score: 5, Funny

    From a BBC News article on this: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6998490.stm) "Meanwhile, in the world of servers the fight is still on, with a new kid on the block - the open-source Linux operating system - making as strong gains in the market as Microsoft." (bold mine) I mean really.. new kid on the block? who is writing these?

    1. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I mean really.. new kid on the block? who is writing these?

      Maybe you don't remember 1992 that well, but I do.

      Yes, Linux emerged much at the same time as NKOTB were topping the charts.

    2. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by MonoSynth · · Score: 5, Funny

      Microsoft is 33, Linux is barely 17.

      hmm, will it be Illegal for MS to screw Linux?

    3. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      hmm, will it be Illegal for MS to screw Linux? It's OK, as long as they get parental consent...
    4. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but does it run linux?

    5. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >hmm, will it be Illegal for MS to screw Linux?
      OK in most of Europe - age of consent around 16.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    6. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by JeepFanatic · · Score: 1

      hmm, will it be Illegal for MS to screw Linux? Not in Pennsylvania. I've been told by a lawyer friend that the age of consent here is 14 for certain circumstances (maily for the Amish).
    7. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by malevolentjelly · · Score: 1

      Linux may have been around in some broken form since the mid-90's, but it's really only been competitive with Windows (for non-unix-centric applications) since 2004-2006 in a realistic sense. For the purpose of the media, it's a new operating system. As far as they're concerned, it's as old as it has been relevant.

      For Linux enthusiasts, Linux is fairly old. For regular people, it's as old as Ubuntu 7.04.

    8. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by wellingtonsteve · · Score: 1

      Well considering I was 4 years old in 1992.. I don't remember much :-)

    9. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, in most of Europe the age of consent is lower than 18.

    10. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the jurisdiction. In muslim countries Linux could be as young as 6. In France iirc it's 12.

    11. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? They've screwed everybody else!

    12. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by BrightFlow · · Score: 1

      Age of consent is 16 in the UK and 15 in much of western europe. So I guess they're good to go :)

    13. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Unix is far older than 17. Linux is close enough to Unix that I can ssh into machines and do stuff without really worrying about what *nix they're running.

    14. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Its not even 11am here and you just went and ruined my day...

      Damn I feel old with that NKOTB reference...

      [goes off to torture the new employees in the call center... none of them is over 25]

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    15. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's the revisionist history MS marketeering has been feeding everyone. It's just that the BBC decided to be a platform for its dissemination.

      --
      Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    16. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by enemorales · · Score: 1

      Funny, the numbers of the fine again.

    17. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      MS is 33 as a company, Linux kernel is 17. Latest Win XP is barely 6 and Vista is what, just over 2?

      Christ, Linux would spend the rest of its life under a bridge if it tried something like that! ;)

    18. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And so we're back to 1337 again..!

    19. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      How old is the MS Windows NT kernel?

    20. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1

      Heh... I just had a mental image of Stallman giving Ballmer the "don't you touch my daughter" speech...

    21. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by FeebleX · · Score: 0

      no, but together they are pretty 1337.

    22. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by CrispBH · · Score: 1
      Partly because it was wrong, partly because I'm semi proud of the BBC's integrity versus most other news sources, but mainly because I was really bored this afternoon, I let them know.

      Dear Mr xxx

      Thanks for your e-mail. You are absolutely right of course, describing
      Linux as the new kid on the block in the server market is wrong, and I
      have corrected our story.

      Regards

      Tim Weber
      Business Editor
      BBC News interactive There we go, fixed :D
    23. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by wellingtonsteve · · Score: 1

      Awesome!
      I did consider getting in touch myself but thought the chance of response was unlikely..

    24. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      At best, Stallman is Linux's weird uncle who has, for some reason, called her "gnugie" since she was a baby.

    25. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in England.

    26. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Tove Torvalds might be better. I've read that she was a Finnish karate champion.

    27. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if they did, then Microsoft 33 would get inside Linux 17, which would be 1337.

    28. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by Stu+L+Tissimus · · Score: 0

      Jesus christ. MS is 33, Linux is 17.

      33 + 17 = 1337!

      --
      A wise man once said, "wtf h4x."
    29. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in most of the Europe.

    30. Re:Apparently linux is the new kid on the block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft is 33, Linux is barely 17. hmm, will it be Illegal for MS to screw Linux?
      In most European countries Linux is legal now. Doesn't stop us fucking Microsoft though.
  6. Linux on the desktop by Teun · · Score: 1

    The way Microsoft and the EU slug it out we might see Linux on the desktop before Microsoft gives in.

    Yet I really hope Microsoft will see the light before there is some real damage done, so many are totally dependent on (the products of) this company.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:Linux on the desktop by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      Hence why some actual competition is needed, to get rid of the lock-in. The more pressure the better in that regard. However, two questions that I haven't yet seen being asked (though I'm sure they have):

      Where is this fine money going, is it being put to proper use, and is it going to help deal with further issues like this?

      Where is the focus on more important things, like securing a level playing field by requiring that consumers have the option of rejecting an installed OS or having an option of installed OS upon the purchase of a new computer?

      The ultimate goal isn't to stop Microsoft, it's to stop all companies who unfairly destroy competition for consumers by locking out that competition using various means, none-of-which being that they have a superior product.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    2. Re:Linux on the desktop by LinuxOnEveryDesktop · · Score: 1

      The way Microsoft and the EU slug it out we might see Linux on the desktop before Microsoft gives in.

      I sure hope it will help to move Linux further onto the Desktop (see nick ;).

      Yet I really hope Microsoft will see the light before there is some real damage done, so many are totally dependent on (the products of) this company.

      What's the worst thing that can happen here? Microsoft banned from selling their software in the EU? Oh dear, that would be a disaster... not. It would not even affect the installed base of Microsoft software. Yawn. No real damage in my view - except perhaps for Microsoft, and to be honest, I could not care less.

      As always, Microsoft is its own worst enemy.

    3. Re:Linux on the desktop by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a good time that they terminate their dependence on a singe company then -- seems like a good idea regardless of who that single company is.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    4. Re:Linux on the desktop by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      They already have the option of rejecting it, it's called DON'T FUCKING BUY IT. I have NEVER myself nor seen anyone else have a gun held to their head by a man saying "Buy this computer with Windows or I'll blow your fucking brains out." Now this is just me, if anyone here has ever seen it please speak up.

    5. Re:Linux on the desktop by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Some actual competition does exist. However, just because competition exists, doesn't mean it's easy to switch from one product to another. If you're whole company relied on Ruby On Rails, and then it was outlawed (let's just say it happened, don't ask why), you'd have quite a hard time reimplementing your entire system in PHP, .Net, J2EE, or whichever other system you chose. If you're using MySQL, and all of a sudden that disappears, it takes a lot of work to switch over to some other RDBMS. Sure, having open standards help to resolve some of the lock in, but I don't think there will ever be a time when you aren't "locked in" to whatever system you are using.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    6. Re:Linux on the desktop by xhrit · · Score: 0

      I say let them burn. I just want to pull the plug.

    7. Re:Linux on the desktop by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      Clearly we meant different things by "lock-in" there, but yes, it takes time to learn something new, and in a sense it is a form of lock-in, I agree, and it's one I want others to be aware of because severe fragmentation in the operation and implementation of different systems that do the same thing is wasted effort and makes life hell for everyone, and you could argue that takes away your "freedom" even, to a degree. That's why standards are so important, they give you a common ground, and then let programs compete in the areas they really *should* be competing in. The standards and the systems should be kept fluid between one another though so that you can easily implement solution Z, and not be forced to also implement solution Y, X, C, R, and P along with it, creating a deeper "lock-in", as you said.

      Of course, I was talking about a much stronger lock-in with important repercussions, not that the above standards debate isn't also important. I could list off dozens of ways companies use "mean" tactics to forcefully lock in consumers, but you probably have heard most of them already. At least most all OSS avoids most all of *those* things, and does make life a lot easier for the end-user.

      In reality, it all comes down to one thing: a better product. Being able to use software that is not legally restricted by countries that implement, or TRY to implement those restrictions, is a perk, a bonus, a feature of the product.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    8. Re:Linux on the desktop by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      I should also add that there are compelling arguments to justify standardization happening "naturally", which they have to a degree, there are several parties interested in using the same system for doing things and for making things modular, I just really...wish...they'd get their act together enough to really strongly standardize on a binary installation system for Linux that's good enough to deal with the problems of implementing such a system.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    9. Re:Linux on the desktop by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      You can buy a computer without Windows that is pre-built and save money, since you don't have to pay for it? Lucky. What country do you live in?

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    10. Re:Linux on the desktop by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      If there's a market for it, make a company that does it. Oh wait...

    11. Re:Linux on the desktop by richlv · · Score: 1

      actually, more important lockin to avoid is vendor lockin.
      if your rubyonrails vendor/support company commits some crime, then is prohibited from operating in your region, you are not completely dumped, as you can find another company, who has the exact same access to source etc.
      of course, it would be inconvinient and induce additional expenses, but let's see what can you do without microsoft...

      --
      Rich
    12. Re:Linux on the desktop by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      Every computer shop wants to make money, so they have to sell what's the most popular even if it's not the best in many ways. It'd be a big loss to them to do otherwise. Thus, competition can never exist if you have to make all your computers run Windows to get the special "contract price" from M$. It's called racketeering, but it's not illegal in the US apparently. :)

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
  7. Even as an MS fan, good... by Numen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a .NET dev, and rather fond of the platform... don't groan too loudly... but even I think this is a good move. I'm glad to see the EU actually prepared to hold large corporations accountable to the law. A pet hate of mine is a legal system that will sanction heavily a private citizen for minor crimes but effectively tut disaprovingly when a large company dumps waste in a river.

    Now, I'd like to see the EU start to use the same stick on large companies that also feel that they are above the law.

    1. Re:Even as an MS fan, good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      A pet hate of mine is a legal system that will sanction heavily a private citizen for minor crimes but effectively tut disaprovingly when a large company dumps waste in a river.


      You hate your own pet?
    2. Re:Even as an MS fan, good... by CaptainZapp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Now, I'd like to see the EU start to use the same stick on large companies that also feel that they are above the law

      They do again and again. It's mostly, but not always price fixing. Other examples include Volkswagen that threatened their Italian dealers to pull the dealership when they sold to customers not living in Italy.

      Fines are usually very hefty and companies usually comply. Micropsoft risks to fall really flat on their face if they try their usual stints here.

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

    3. Re:Even as an MS fan, good... by K-Mile · · Score: 5, Informative
    4. Re:Even as an MS fan, good... by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >You hate your own pet?
      Look, there's this thing with words whereby the order in which they are printed changes the meaning. No, really!

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    5. Re:Even as an MS fan, good... by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      I'm a .NET dev, and rather fond of the platform... don't groan too loudly... but even I think this is a good move. I'm glad to see the EU actually prepared to hold large corporations accountable to the law. A pet hate of mine is a legal system that will sanction heavily a private citizen for minor crimes but effectively tut disaprovingly when a large company dumps waste in a river.

      Now, I'd like to see the EU start to use the same stick on large companies that also feel that they are above the law. Hear, hear! I say "Ok, you want corporate personhood? Fine, the corporation is a legal person. Now let's start talking about a corporate death penalty." Well, it wouldn't be like a literal execution, more like Babylon 5's "death of personality" where a killer's mind is wiped and a new persona is built in its place, someone who will live a life of contrition for his previous crimes. So in the case of a corporation, a mindwipe would be a firing of the board and executives. To give added sting, there should be a "banned from baseball" provision for sufficiently heinous actions. Hell, Kevin Mitnick is told he can't go near a computer for his hacking? Fine, so long as the crooked accountants aren't allowed near a calculator after they serve their time. Someone like Ken Lay, assuming he were still alive, he should be living the rest of his life wearing sack cloth and ashes. He should be forever barred from even associating with his former colleagues, the same sort of parole violation rules used on cons when they associate with other known criminals.

      We need to put the fear back in business. Right now the response to breaking the law is "Yawn, wrist-slap." The response should be "Jesus Christ, break the law? Are you out of your fucking mind? They won't even let me near the till of a burger joint if I get busted for this kind of thing! My life will be destroyed, my family in the gutter. How dare you even suggest it! I should defenestrate you right now!" The consequences for this sort of thing should be so dire, Lovecraft would be writing stories about it.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    6. Re:Even as an MS fan, good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad to see the EU actually prepared to hold large corporations accountable to the law.


      Yes, that's a good thing, but this isn't what's being done in this case. Look for the money trail and see where it leads... it's about pushing off foreign (to the EU) "control" and government subsidizing of internal "competition" to get that control back into their own hands. It's only remotely related to "making the big evil corporation behave". Simply look at all the EU funded projects in software. Governments shouldn't be in the business of competing with companies... creating standards for interoperability, yes, which is what part of all this is about. But when the EU then turns around and funds "competition", then it's about something more.
  8. why amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would anyone say that it is amazing that Microsoft should be expected to comply with EU directives? The notion that Microsoft, or any company, is somehow above and beyond the status of nation/state is patently ludicrous.

    1. Re:why amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone say that it is amazing that Microsoft should be expected to comply with EU directives?

      Because they haven't paid fines in any other jurisdiction?

      The notion that Microsoft, or any company, is somehow above and beyond the status of nation/state is patently ludicrous.

      Ludicrous it may be, but they have billions in unpaid fines to the EU, unpaid fines in many US states, and continual non-compliance with pretty much every court order ever issued against them, yet no government has actually seized any MS assets or arrested any executives. They *are* operating above the law right now.

  9. at current exchange rate by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 1

    it would be 1.352 billion. Why discount Microsoft 20 million ?

    --
    for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    1. Re:at current exchange rate by Loibisch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They will likely be paying the fee in Euros. So how and when they 'convert' their money from USD to EUR is pretty much their concern. Maybe the money even comes from the European branch entirely? The way the Dollar is acting currently it looks like they'd rather do it sooner than later.

      Also as was pointed out above: the value of the Dollar in regards to the Euro changes (at least) on a daily basis. So there's no single 'proper' dollar value for the fee, they just have to pay the 899m Euros.

    2. Re:at current exchange rate by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Why discount Microsoft 20 million ?

      To qualify for the discount, Microsoft said that it was a student.

    3. Re:at current exchange rate by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      If you have a good enough grasp of what an exchange rate is to include the word "current" in the subject line, why are you asking this question?

      It's likely the fine shown in Euro (as shown in the summary) will have to be paid in Euro.

    4. Re:at current exchange rate by backwardMechanic · · Score: 1

      To make slashdotters and script kiddies happy. Look again at that figure: $1337 billion

    5. Re:at current exchange rate by Teun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is evidence the money would have to come out of the European operations.
      Last week one of their managers said in an interview that the cost of the EU-required documentation had wiped out most income of the past year.
      And now the EU does not accept this documentation :)
      Or more accurate, does not accept the price attached to it.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    6. Re:at current exchange rate by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

      Last week one of their managers said in an interview that the cost of the EU-required documentation had wiped out most income of the past year.
      And now the EU does not accept this documentation :)

      You got a cite for that? It shouldn't have cost them more than a couple millions to produce that documentation. What are they, mormons, writing on golden tablets or something?
    7. Re:at current exchange rate by comm2k · · Score: 1

      You got a cite for that? I guess he is refering to this comment: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=462018&cid=22506192
    8. Re:at current exchange rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last week one of their managers said in an interview that the cost of the EU-required documentation had wiped out most income of the past year.
      and today we learned "Always document your code!"
    9. Re:at current exchange rate by Teun · · Score: 1

      Indeed that's what I was thinking of.
      In hindsight maybe not the most reliable source...

      Thanks for finding it, I was racking my brain where I read it :)

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  10. but, we are microsoft by methuselah · · Score: 1

    its about time somebody did something about the convicted criminals at microsoft even if it is never going to be enforced...

  11. Interoperability of Office? by WiglyWorm · · Score: 1

    I mean, it's good for consumers that they're forcing Microsoft to make its programs compatible with competitors. I certainly won't complain about the fact that they have to make Windows easier for people to develop for either... However...

    How does it make sense for Office to have to be compatible? Microsoft Office is a Microsoft Program. If they want it to be proprietary, it's their right. It happens to be the best office suite out there, IMO. Office 2007 puts Ooo to shame on all fronts. Next thing you know, the EU is going to rule that the Wii, due to its dominant market position, has to run XBox 360 and PS3 games.

    1. Re:Interoperability of Office? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Office puts things to shame? How so? You'd think two programs that are designed to do the same thing would, you know, do about exactly the same? Or are you saying you can't adjust to that open office has its menu buttons in different places/has a few different features, or that the default font is different?

      Ohhhh, tough one there.

    2. Re:Interoperability of Office? by asuffield · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they want it to be proprietary, it's their right.


      You seem unclear on the concept of "rights". A "right" is something that a government has decided you may do. This government has decided that they do not have this "right". You can't wave a magic BS stick in the air and make it so that they do. They don't have the right because the EU government bloody well says they don't, and that's all there is to it.
    3. Re:Interoperability of Office? by WiglyWorm · · Score: 1

      I forgot. Speak for microsoft and you're going to do nothing but get flamed.

      Simply put, there is a huge disparity in ease of use between Microsoft Office 2007 vs Ooo. Microsoft Office wins. The UI, the navigation, everything is more coherant, and better layed out. It's the same with GIMP vs. Photoshop. They're just about the same, but most people still prefer Photoshop because the UI is much better thought out.

      Further, businesses do have rights, and if I started talking about how telecoms had the "right" to tap our phones because the government bloody well said they did, I'd be getting similarly flamed. So get past your hatred of "M$" and look at it objectively.

    4. Re:Interoperability of Office? by lwriemen · · Score: 1

      Err. I'm tempted to just label your post as clueless and move on. Microsoft has given up a number of rights by using anti-competitive behavior in markets where they hold a monopoly position.

      You should really learn about the definition of a monopoly and how a monopoly can impact the market. We would be light years ahead in innovation if Microsoft (or some other abusive monopolist) wasn't present to stifle innovation. For example, I saw a recent quote from Bill Gates stating that speech interfaces were the future of computing. OS/2 Warp 4 had that included in it's release in 1996. It wasn't great, but consider where speech would be now if OS/2 had enough of a market share to drive active, high-visibility development.

      If you believe that OS/2 failed to gain market share based on it's own merits or IBM's handling, then you need to read the findings of law from the US DOJ vs. Microsoft antitrust trial.

    5. Re:Interoperability of Office? by fondacio · · Score: 2, Informative

      First of all, this case is not about Microsoft Office, but about bundling of Windows Media Player with Windows and about interoperability between Microsoft server systems and other servers. Second, the rationale behind anti-trust laws (both in the US and the EU in fact, it's just that in the case of Microsoft the EU has been more persistent in pursuing the company) is that if a player on the market achieves a certain dominance, regulators need to intervene to safeguard competition. So in theory, Microsoft could one day be forced to make MS Office interoperable if it had achieved such a dominance on the market that it stifled competition. That is what happened with the server protocols - if MS were one of many players, it would be perfectly alright for it to keep its protocols closed and not share information. But because it has such a dominant position, it is forced to share some of its proprietary information for the common good.

    6. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Ash+Vince · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Further, businesses do have rights, and if I started talking about how telecoms had the "right" to tap our phones because the government bloody well said they did, I'd be getting similarly flamed. So get past your hatred of "M$" and look at it objectively. The point you seem to be missing is that the EU is a government body that has the ability to legislate. That means that you have to obey EU competition laws if you are doing business in Europe. Saying anything else is like saying that I can come to the US and ignore local laws, I can not. This is not saying I do not have rights when I visit the US, but it is saying that my rights when in the US are dictated to me by the US Government, which it turn has to follow the constitution and whatever else. If I do not want to follow US federal or state laws I only have one choice assuming I do not want to risk prison: Do not visit the US.
      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    7. Re:Interoperability of Office? by ajs318 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How does it make sense for Office to have to be compatible? Microsoft Office is a Microsoft Program. If they want it to be proprietary, it's their right.
      No it isn't: it's blatant anti-competitive behaviour.

      If you have a large CD collection, you aren't stuck to one make of CD player. You can buy a Philips or a Sony or a Panasonic or a Daewoo or any number of no-name brands. Your investment in CDs is protected by there being more than one manufacturer of CD players. They all take the same discs, they all run from the same power supply, they all have the same analogue outputs. The only thing on which they compete is merit.

      But if you have a large collection of saved Microsoft Office documents, the situation is a little different. You can't get a perfect drop-in replacement for MS Office precisely because Microsoft are withholding details of file formats and protocols. Therefore, Microsoft customers are forced to keep paying licence fees to Microsoft just to keep the ability to access their old saved documents.

      Some third-party office suite could cane Microsoft on every other feature going (and indeed, the latest KOffice does); but it could never gain serious consideration as a replacement for MS, as long as it lacked the ability to import old documents saved by Microsoft Office. (The possible exception would be in the case of a brand-new company setting up shop from nowhere, with absolutely no legacy documents whatsoever and enough clout to persuade customers not to e-mail them .doc and .xls files.)

      Next thing you know, the EU is going to rule that the Wii, due to its dominant market position, has to run XBox 360 and PS3 games.
      Don't laugh, it could happen. But what's more likely is that games console manufacturers will be forbidden to use measures to prevent third-party developed games running on their system (the venerable Atari 2600 depended on the existence of 3rd party games to keep it going beyond 1981 ..... Atari's own offerings were pretty christian in comparison to titles by the likes of Activision) and/or preventing games developed by them running on other people's systems.

      Anyway, it's not the 1980s anymore ..... games released on more than one system are compiled from the same Source Code. There's no real reason why, if processor power per pound keeps increasing, games couldn't be run through an interpreter ..... which would be the only platform-specific bit.
      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    8. Re:Interoperability of Office? by bpgslashdotaccount · · Score: 2

      A "right" is something that a government has decided you may do. Uh, no. "Rights" are bestowed by God. They exist because people exist, independent of governments. Governments should safeguard these rights, but too often they wave their magic BS sticks in the air and make laws that infringe on our rights.
    9. Re:Interoperability of Office? by macslas'hole · · Score: 1

      A "right" is something that a government has decided you may do. +5 Insightful?! Are you nuts? Governments do NOT have the power the grant rights! As a human being, YOU have all the rights. Governments (and other fictitious entities) do NOT have rights. We cede some of our rights in order to grant these entities the powers with which to carry out the duties that we created them for.
      These fictitious entities exist because we created them. They have no rights, no power, nor say over what rights we have. As would have been said in days gone by (or by me, if I were a deist/theist), our rights are granted by god/our creator. Our rights are not granted by man and certainly not by man's creation i.e. government.
      --
      Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
    10. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I do not want to follow US federal or state laws I only have one choice assuming I do not want to risk prison: Do not visit the US.

      Yeah, like that works...

    11. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Temkin · · Score: 1

      You seem unclear on the concept of "rights". A "right" is something that a government has decided you may do. This government has decided that they do not have this "right". You can't wave a magic BS stick in the air and make it so that they do. They don't have the right because the EU government bloody well says they don't, and that's all there is to it. In the US, a "right" is inalienable, and not generally subject to the spot approval of the current power brokers holding the reins of government. This is one of the huge differences between the US definition of "right" and the EU definition of "right". Not defending Microsoft.... Just keep in mind that this clouds the discussion, as parties in each locale are using the same word to describe a subtly different concept.

    12. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Rumagent · · Score: 1

      Keep your god out of this please... There is enough stupidity in the EU already.

    13. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Office puts things to shame? How so?

      I rather doubt that was a sincere question given your generally cynical tone, but if it was, there have been several extensive and fairly detailed discussions on the subject in past Slashdot discussions that you might like to read.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    14. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I long for the days where rights were granted to governent and not the other way around.

    15. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no. "Rights" are bestowed by God. I'm not sure what's funnier: you thinking there is a God, or you thinking He spends his time bestowing human rights to Microsoft.
    16. Re:Interoperability of Office? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      i think we're getting rights wrt people mixed with rights wrt corporations.

      rights wrt people are bestowed by god or self-evident for the atheists among us, as you describe.

      rights wrt to corporations are significantly more limited as they're artificial entities, allowed to exist only because the people/government allows them to, therefor rights wrt to corporations are pretty much exactly as the GP stated.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    17. Re:Interoperability of Office? by karmatic · · Score: 1
      You seem unclear on the concept of "rights". A "right" is something that a government has decided you may do.

      You also seem unclear on the concept of a "right". A right is something that a person intrinsically may do. The word you are looking for is privilege. Attitudes like yours are dangerous, and responsible for much of the erosion of liberty seen in the modern world.

      In the United States, the Constitution and Declaration of independence specifically recognize this. The government derives it's power from the people, who hold all rights and privileges by default. Some privileges are given up, in order to ensure the rights of others. Governments can infringe rights; however, that doesn't mean you don't have them.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

      A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

      If the "right" was granted by the government, how could said government infringe upon it?

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
    18. Re:Interoperability of Office? by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      In the US, a "right" is inalienable, and not generally subject to the spot approval of the current power brokers holding the reins of government. This is one of the huge differences between the US definition of "right" and the EU definition of "right". Not defending Microsoft.... Just keep in mind that this clouds the discussion, as parties in each locale are using the same word to describe a subtly different concept. Yes, we do deem our rights inalienable, but we often disagree about which rights fit the bill. Does the right to a well-armed militia include individuals owning machine guns? Are blacks human beings who share these rights? Is a woman the equal of a man and should she be allowed to vote? The constitution says that rights not specifically reserved and enumerated for the federal government defaults to the states but we have the feds overruling any state laws they dislike, medicinal pot for example.

      This is the point where theory meets reality, rubber hits the road, and people who don't get out of the way end up as roadkill.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    19. Re:Interoperability of Office? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      By biased individuals or neutral opinions? I'd be willing to bet it was the former. I personally prefer open office but honestly can't say that I would expect there to be a difference between the two applications. This is in fact, one of the reasons why people have such an issue with OOXML trying to become a standard.

      As previous, that was a skeptical question, not an attack on the GP. Doesn't mean I don't want to hear an honest answer as opposed to "answers are out there". So yeah, when has there ever been anything office does better than open office, that is not something that can be done in open office? Compatibility between formats issue being left aside in that question. I'm still waiting for a response to this.

    20. Re:Interoperability of Office? by bpgslashdotaccount · · Score: 1

      Whether or not you believe in God, people existed before governments. Did those people not have rights?

    21. Re:Interoperability of Office? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where office fits into this though. Office has never been part of Windows, and MS has never stopped anyone from running any other word processor. When you buy MS Office, you have to buy it seperately, and it doesn't interfere with the use of other office products like OO.O, or WordPerfect. I see the problem with things like IE, which MS gives away for free, and which is unable to be removed from the system. But I don't see a problem with them not releasing the format specification for a completely separate product. Would they be required to release documents for every other application they produce?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    22. Re:Interoperability of Office? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that MS even knows the details of their own file format.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    23. Re:Interoperability of Office? by darkfire5252 · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. "Rights" are bestowed by God. They exist because people exist, independent of governments. Not really applicable here. Corporations do not exist except at the whim of the government. The corporate charter that every corporation must have is a license from the government to exist and it allows the corporation some of the rights that a person would have. The government is perfectly able to revoke a corporations charter if the government determines that the corporation is no longer operating in a beneficial manner, though it rarely happens.
    24. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      The discussions I was thinking about were pretty neutral, in the sense that they dealt substantially with objective data about what could and couldn't be done in the products. Obviously a lot of those points were being made by people with their own biases, and some of the usability issues are inherently subjective. Anyway, if you want honest answers, you can find several of the discussions by sticking my user name and keywords like "OpenOffice" into a search engine, specifying slashdot.org as the site. Don't just read the long/highly moderated comments I made, though; if you scan the discussions filtering at +3 or above, you'll find a lot of good comments by many contributors on both sides of the debate.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    25. Re:Interoperability of Office? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      The closest thing of the "EU" definiton of rights is the European Convention on Human Rights. The first few sentences of the convention includes the descriptions of "universal", "fundamental" in relation with rights.

      The grandparent post merely said that ultimately governments and the people are those who enforce rights, whether we consider them inalienable or not.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    26. Re:Interoperability of Office? by bad_seed10 · · Score: 1

      In the US, a "right" is inalienable, and not generally subject to the spot approval of the current power brokers holding the reins of government. This is one of the huge differences between the US definition of "right" and the EU definition of "right". Not defending Microsoft.... Just keep in mind that this clouds the discussion, as parties in each locale are using the same word to describe a subtly different concept.
      In the US a bunch of power brokers got together 200 years ago and decided what was and wasn't a right. If you got enough of the current power brokers together today they can change those rights. There's nothing inherently inalienable about them, despite the label.
    27. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Rumagent · · Score: 1

      Certainly, but they are not derived from invisible skyman.

    28. Re:Interoperability of Office? by aperion · · Score: 1

      In the US, a "right" is inalienable, and not generally subject to the spot approval of the current power brokers holding the reins of government. This is one of the huge differences between the US definition of "right" and the EU definition of "right". Not defending Microsoft.... Just keep in mind that this clouds the discussion, as parties in each locale are using the same word to describe a subtly different concept. Except you know, when the rights of one impedes on the rights of another... Like say, liberty?

      MS has a right to be proprietary, we have a right not to use proprietary. The government needs to ensure both.
    29. Re:Interoperability of Office? by introspekt.i · · Score: 1

      Rights are government granted? I think that may be a fundamental belief that isn't shared between the US and the UK/EU. Perhaps it feeds into this nasty argument? I don't know. Americans do tend to lean to rights being granted to government by the people instead of this "progressive liberal democracy" government rights to people model that gets thrown by "ya'll Europeans". So don't be surprised when you wave that argument around in front of an American (much less one with libertarian leanings) and the ideas are lost upon them.

      That being said, Microsoft isn't a person who has "rights". Microsoft is a corporation, a legal construct, not a citizen or person. "Rights" in the sense of the word don't apply so much here...maybe the term is something more like "capabilities" or "allowances". If a corporation breaks the law, the biggest punishment one could give it is the revocation of its corporate liability protection or maybe just dissolving it. Neither one of these will happen, so the next obvious choice would be the denial of any further protection of patents or intellectual property Microsoft requests in Europe until it comes out from beneath the contempt of Brussels.

    30. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      More to the point, the EU Commission assumes that MS knows the details of their own file format. Now if Microsoft does not give out the documentation, they are assumed to intentionally disobey the order to do so.

      I wonder if they could get out of that by claiming the documentation is lost. And how much business they would lose from appearing incompetent ;-)

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    31. Re:Interoperability of Office? by nachoboy · · Score: 1

      You can't get a perfect drop-in replacement for MS Office precisely because Microsoft are withholding details of file formats and protocols.

      Not anymore.

      Therefore, Microsoft customers are forced to keep paying licence fees to Microsoft just to keep the ability to access their old saved documents.

      I don't understand how not releasing a format somehow forces customers to continually pay license fees. The Office license terms specify a perpetual license, ie, you can run it forever without paying a cent more. Why not just keep using the version of Office you ostensibly used to create the documents in the first place?

      Barring that, the viewers are always available to download without cost.

    32. Re:Interoperability of Office? by prockcore · · Score: 1

      If you have a large CD collection, you aren't stuck to one make of CD player.


      If you have a large Fairplay AAC collection you are stuck to one make of music player.
    33. Re:Interoperability of Office? by lwriemen · · Score: 1

      Do your research. After the initial antitrust ruling against Microsoft's requirement to one license of Windows per processor, Microsoft tried requiring one MS Office license per processor. This was in response to competitive pressure from Lotus in the PC pre-load market.

      MS has never stopped anyone from running any other office software, but they have used undocumented APIs to ensure that MS Office had a competitive advantage over other other office software. This is the kind of stuff that a monopoly position can provide an immoral company. The line from competitive advantage to immoral is unfortunately so thin that many companies cross it too often.

      Read the findings of fact in the US DOJ vs. Microsoft case, and you'll find all kinds of examples of monopoly abuse.

    34. Re:Interoperability of Office? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they could get out of that by claiming the documentation is lost. And how much business they would lose from appearing incompetent
      Hasn't hurt them yet.
      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    35. Re:Interoperability of Office? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      If you have a large Fairplay AAC collection you are stuck to one make of music player. You are not. Apple has done from day one what Microsoft would only do after getting a $1.3bn fine: Provided interoperability.

      Exactly the same software that you use do download music with FairPlay DRM allows you to burn the music to CDs, from which you can re-import it either using the same software in MP3 format, or in one of several lossless formats. Or you can put that CD into a multitude of different computers, running software from a multitude of different manufacturers, that will let you re-import the music in any format imaginable.
    36. Re:Interoperability of Office? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      How does it make sense for Office to have to be compatible? Microsoft Office is a Microsoft Program.

      Office and Windows are both copyrighted works by MS. Windows has been ruled to be a monopoly by the courts. Office has not been ruled to be, but then the EU has not ruled that office has to be compatible with the ODF format. What several EU members have done is created purchasing rules for the government itself requiring bids to comply with interoperability standards. This is no different that requiring vehicles purchased by the government meet minimum emissions standards, as any company bidding can create products that meet those criteria.

      Now onto the more confusing part. There are two factors that differ from the situation above. One, where MS uses their OS monopoly to gain share in the Office suite market. So far MS has taken several actions that fit into this category. First, they bundle a basic editor with all copies of Windows that reads and writes the MS Office word processing format, but not the formats of other word processors on the market. This ties their monopoly to MS Office. Second, in the past MS has granted discounts to OEMs selling MS Office and Windows bundled together with hardware. This action also leverages their monopoly on desktop OS's.

      The second reason the EU has to investigate MS with regard to their office suite, is that MS Office may have monopoly influence in the Office suite market all by itself. This type of ruling terrifies MS. They have settled every single allegation of this sort quickly and quietly out of court. For instance, they paid Novell $536 million to drop their antitrust lawsuit, just seven days after it was filed. For comparison, the EU began investigating Apple's influence on the portable music player market when street evaluations of their market share hit about 70% (which is a rule of thumb often applied to antitrust allegations). Most analysts estimate MS Office has about 80% of the office suite market.

      Office 2007 puts Ooo to shame on all fronts.

      That's all well and good, but it does not have anything to do with whether or not MS has violated antitrust laws. The law doesn't prohibit them from making crappy products. It prohibits them from leveraging monopolies in one market to gain share in other markets.

      Next thing you know, the EU is going to rule that the Wii, due to its dominant market position, has to run XBox 360 and PS3 games.

      First, the Wii has about 37% of the global game console market, which is nowhere near a monopoly. In fact, the game console market is a very healthy market right now, with three big competitors each trying to outdo the others. Second, the markets you're talking about are the console market and the game market. So in order for the Wii to be leveraged into the game market, it would require a tie between them. That means Nintendo would have to stop bundling games with their console and provide a way for game makers to create Nintendo games using the same APIs as Nintendo. The latter is already true and the former is not a large consideration, even if Nintendo did have a monopoly (which they clearly do not).

    37. Re:Interoperability of Office? by mollymoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you nuts? Governments do NOT have the power the grant rights! As a human being, YOU have all the rights.

      I love it when people say things like that, it gives me a good chuckle. You do know it's completely and utterly meaningless, yes? Rights mean exactly fuck all if they're not backed up by men with guns. The governments have the most guns, so they're the only ones who can, in any practical sense at all, grant rights.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    38. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool...let me just go use my ipod songs on my .

    39. Re:Interoperability of Office? by mollymoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You also seem unclear on the concept of a "right". A right is something that a person intrinsically may do.

      I can intrinsically sneak into your home, stab you to death, rape your wife and take all your property. You might want to come up with a better definition of what a right is. After enough thought you'll come to realise that what you call rights are just things you want to be able to do and think would make for a fair society. The desire for these things may be intrinsic, but without enforcement these "rights" are pure mental masturbation.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    40. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem unclear on the concept of "rights". A "right" is something that a government has decided you may do. This government has decided that they do not have this "right". You can't wave a magic BS stick in the air and make it so that they do. They don't have the right because the EU government bloody well says they don't, and that's all there is to it. I bet you're one of the people who bitches about the US government taking your rights away. So which way do you want it?
    41. Re:Interoperability of Office? by mollymoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whether or not you believe in God, people existed before governments. Did those people not have rights?

      They had the de-facto right to do whatever the hell they liked, but no other rights. Can you tell me what the difference would be if they did or did not have rights, given there was no government to enforce them? I can't see how things would be different at all whether you considered them to have rights or not. That's why I think the concept of rights in the absence of a means of enforcement is entirely meaningless.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    42. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Here in Europe, there is no tyrant, no Bush, no god.

      But we got Law.

      Ain't we proud we have it !

    43. Re:Interoperability of Office? by thomas.galvin · · Score: 1

      You seem unclear on the concept of "rights". A "right" is something that a government has decided you may do. This government has decided that they do not have this "right". You can't wave a magic BS stick in the air and make it so that they do. They don't have the right because the EU government bloody well says they don't, and that's all there is to it. No. A right in inalienable, something that cannot be taken away, even if it is denied. We all have the intrinsic right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, et cetera. Even if we are prevented from using these rights, by an evil government or an evil corporation, these rights still remain. The government does not grant rights, and it therefore cannot take them away.

      Whether Microsoft has any rights in this situation is beside the point. Allowing a right to be defined as something which the government grants is evil, because it is the first step in rights being denied.
    44. Re:Interoperability of Office? by macslas'hole · · Score: 1

      I love it when people say things like that, it gives me a good chuckle. You do know it's completely and utterly meaningless, yes? Rights mean exactly fuck all if they're not backed up by men with guns. The governments have the most guns, so they're the only ones who can, in any practical sense at all, grant rights.

      You are quite right that rights are worthless without the willingness to back them up. But what makes you think that good men are not willing to do so?

      Moreover, in my country, the government's "men with guns", i.e. the army, are also citizens with guns, citizens with their own rights to protect, citizens with their own consciences; they are soldiers who can be court marshaled for obeying illegal, unjust, or immoral orders, who have sworn to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Additionally, I would not be surprised if the US citizen's guns do not outnumber the US government's guns.

      The truth is that the government has no more power than we let it have. If you believe it rightfully has the power to crush you, it will have it. If you don't believe that, it might still crush you, but if you fight back, not only have you retained your humanity, you just might beat it.

      And what is the alternative? The government pushes you, and you roll over and take like a bitch? It is exactly attitudes like yours that allow the government to take powers that it was not given.

      You have all the rights. If don't believe it and you don't push back against the taking of your freedoms, then you will eventually have none. There are still such things in this world as fighting the good fight, doing what's right and what's hard, taking responsibility for the way things are and will be. Be a man, not a sheep. Stand up for yourself and your rights and the rights of your fellows. Stop rolling over and taking it in the shorts.
      </rant>
      --
      Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
    45. Re:Interoperability of Office? by macslas'hole · · Score: 1

      In the US a bunch of power brokers got together 200 years ago and decided what was and wasn't a right. Incorrect.
      In the US a bunch of power brokers got together 200 years ago and decided what was and wasn't a power of government.


      There, fixed it for you.
      --
      Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
    46. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Human] rights are NOT conferred by a government.

      "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

      --Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

      Note the language - rights are a privilege of simply existing, nothing a government says, or doesn't say, can change this. The points of argument are what rights human beings have and whether a corporation has any rights (human rights or otherwise) are the only points of debate. Also note that just because you have rights (government granted or otherwise) doesn't mean you *will* get them - just that you *should*

    47. Re:Interoperability of Office? by mollymoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you think you need a concept of inherent rights to defend others? You don't at all. You just fight to ensure people are treated the way you think they should be treated, rather than the way we were born to be treated or the way God intended us to be treated.

      Not believing rights are inherent doesn't mean I don't think they're important or worth fighting for, quite the contrary in fact. I know I have no rights without something to enforce them. Knowing that without enforcement I have no rights, I will fight hard to ensure the rights I want are enshrined in law. I don't need to believe I have inherent rights to fight to preserve and extend my freedoms - your suggesting that I do is a complete non-sequitor. I find your attitude, which suggests the government cannot take your rights away, dangerous. I fight because I stand to lose my rights if I do not. If I had nothing to lose, why would I fight? I do stand up for my rights and the rights of my fellows, not because I think that's the way God intended things to be or because the rights are inherent to humanity, but because that's the way I think things should be.

      You fight for enforcement of rights you believe you have anyway, I'll fight for the rights I don't believe exist without enforcement. I bet we'd pretty much agree on what those rights are / should be. We'll be fighting for the same thing, the only difference will be that I won't be deluding myself about what I am fighting for ;)

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    48. Re:Interoperability of Office? by macslas'hole · · Score: 1

      You may intrinsically try to do these things; keep at it and you will lose you life for it. What's your point? that rights are nothing without enforcement? I ask you again, What makes you think that good men will not enforce their rights? Your point appears to be pure mental masturbation. Perhaps, you just don't like people asserting that they have their rights. A civilized person will assert they have a right before they enforce it. E.g., see Declaration of Independence.

      --
      Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
    49. Re:Interoperability of Office? by macslas'hole · · Score: 1

      It appear that I may have maligned you unjustly. I maintain that I have all the rights and should anyone attempt to violate them that I have the right to defend my rights. The government can't take your rights nor grant them; it is not theirs to give or to take. We create government; its powers come from us. The government can, most assuredly, attempt to violate your rights; it can forget why it exists. One of the reasons that I maintain that the people have all the rights is that, when the people go against the government, the weapons they use are their rights. If that fails, only then should blood be shed.

      I don't think it is at all delusional to think that the people have all the rights. It is a matter of what came first, and of which is a more concrete entity: the human or the government. There is nothing mystical or divine about it. Even an amoeba has the right to strive to be alive; it is inherent in all living things.

      You should be free to do as you wish, so long as it doesn't affect others. In the end, it is our responsibility to make that happen, and we are born with all the rights to justify that and all the right to exercise the power to make that happen. We need no justification other than "I am".

      --
      Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
    50. Re:Interoperability of Office? by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      Good men will fight to ensure the inherent rights of others if that's what they believe in. Good men with no concept of inherent rights will fight to ensure others are treated the way they think people should be treated.

      Anyway, my problem with the concept of inherent rights is that anybody can say they have a right to do anything and then feel justified in doing it. The declaration of independence essentially says "we have these rights because we say we do". Well, I can say that too. I can say I have a right to roam the land and use the Earth's natural resources, that that right is inherent to every creature on the planet. If I were religious I could say God created the Earth for us all and no-one should have a monopoly on any part of it. I would then feel justified in camping in your field and eating from your orchard. When we all have different idea of what our rights are conflicts arise and, as both parties think they have a right to be doing what they are doing, neither is willing to back down. If you define rights as those which are mutually agreed and enshrined in law this problem does not arise.

      You say a civilised person will assert they have a right before they enforce it, I say a civilised society will agree upon what everybody's rights should be and then enforce them.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    51. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if the government decides that you do not have the right to live, then you don't, and thats all there is to it?
      Tool.

    52. Re:Interoperability of Office? by boskone · · Score: 1

      Government isn't there to enforce rights. Government is allowed to perform certain activities for the welfare of the citizens and in allowing the government to do this for them, citizens cede some of their inherent rights.

      I'm genuinely interested (not trolling), how do you think governments "enforce" rights? Governments can only infringe rights you already have.

    53. Re:Interoperability of Office? by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      Given my point is that I don't believe there are, in any meaningful sense, rights without enforcement (i.e. no inherent rights) your question doesn't make any sense to me at all.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    54. Re:Interoperability of Office? by macslas'hole · · Score: 1

      Bravo! You made me smile!

      Yes, civilized society might agree upon an at most minimal set of rights and enshrine them in law. But rights should not be defined or delimited by law. Defining what your rights are should not be a function of lawyers and judges. Defining how your rights interact with the rights of other should be the function of law and the legal system - not what those rights are.

      By the way, we do have rights because we say we do. And you can say it too.

      I have some problems with enshrining rights in law. One, rights are innumerable. Two, people may eventually forget that and think that the only rights they have are those enshrined in law. It makes it harder to fight injustice when you must counter arguments that the right isn't in the law so it doesn't exist. We see this happening in the US today; government lawyers arguing that Constitution doesn't ensure this or that right and therefore the government is under no requirement to respect it. Interestingly enough, this is the same argument that Madison and Jefferson had over the Bill of Rights.

      --
      Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
    55. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If they want it to be proprietary, it's their right....You seem unclear on the concept of "rights"

      No, he's not unclear. He's an American.

      Americans believe their country is the only one in the world, and other creatures living outside it should all respect their laws.

      If they don't, they will be killed. This concept has worked well in South America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. We will now see if it works in Europe....

    56. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A "right" is something that a government has decided you may do.

      Let me fix that for you. A right is something people have forbidden their government from preventing.

    57. Re:Interoperability of Office? by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      On your what?

      (Anything with a line-in jack, I guess .....)

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    58. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Anspen · · Score: 1

      You don't just have rights in relation to the government. Rights also are related to other individuals. Actually, the whole point of having a government is that they can enforce your rights vis-a-vis others (so your neigbour doesn't jsut clb you ovewr the head if he wants your car/laptop/wife). For example Microsoft needs the EU to enforce their copyrights on European buisinesses.

    59. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Anspen · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. "Rights" are bestowed by God.

      Uh, no. "Rights" are bestowed by the Flying Spaghetti monster.

      May his noodly appendage protect our right to ketschup. Amen.

    60. Re:Interoperability of Office? by Anspen · · Score: 1

      To be fair: from Apple' s point of view that's a bug, not a feature (good thing too since it's a very crapy feature, having to burn, rerip and encode instead of just being playable everywhere).

  12. Unfair? by danhuby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm no Microsoft fan, but I have to admit that I don't see what's wrong with shipping a media player with your OS. Surely that's just adding useful functionality?

    Apple ships with iTunes, and most Linux distros include a media player.

    Is the point here to do with creating a monopoly on online music purchasing? Because despite shipping WMP with Windows, iTunes has still taken the market.

    Dan

    1. Re:Unfair? by Teun · · Score: 1

      Europe made a serious error in their ruling about the media player.
      Microsoft complied by making available a XP version without it but because the EU had omitted the demand to lower the price accordingly and by consequence there was no demand for this N-version.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    2. Re:Unfair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This one was more for charging disgustingly high royalities for providing the interfaces required for the back-office "server stuff", keeping small companies out of the core technologies

    3. Re:Unfair? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Apple ships with iTunes, and most Linux distros include a media player.

      They'll never do this type of fine here in the USA for the reasons you stated. Besides, given the state of Linux, connecting with a portable media player is not that easy for many newbie users.

    4. Re:Unfair? by Tango42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's no problem with shipping a media player with your OS. There is a problem with shipping just your media player with your OS. It's using a monopoly in one market to gain a monopoly in another, which is not allowed.

    5. Re:Unfair? by apathy+maybe · · Score: 4, Informative

      Repeat after me,
      "You are not allowed to use a monopoly in one area to try and leverage an advantage in another area."

      That is why different rules apply to Apple and various X/GNU/Linux distributors as apply to Microsoft.

      Microsoft has an effective monopoly in the desktop OS market, and by bundling Windows Media Player (and MSIE for that matter...), they are creating a situation where people might use it to create WMP files (especially as that is the default).

      You might say that it isn't a big deal if people rip CDs to WMP, but then they want to play them on a portable media player, they have to make sure that it plays them. The company that makes the media player is giving a kick-back (patent licencing?) to Microsoft, and thus Microsoft is leveraging its monopoly in the desktop OS to give it an advantage in another market.

      That is just one example of why they shouldn't be allowed to do it, but there are plenty of others.

      --
      I wank in the shower.
    6. Re:Unfair? by lwriemen · · Score: 1

      Microsoft having an abusive monopoly is unfair. There's nothing wrong with shipping useful functionality with your OS as long as it isn't leveraged to stifle competition. Microsoft has been judged to not be a fair player in the market.

    7. Re:Unfair? by schnikies79 · · Score: 0

      Again, how is that different than apple?

      On the last mac I bought (a g4 800mhz ibook), there was no software shipped other than Apple.

      --
      Gone!
    8. Re:Unfair? by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 1

      If anything, the price of the N version would be *higher* because MS had to do work to remove WMP. So MS did in fact give people a discount from what the price would have been.

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
    9. Re:Unfair? by downix · · Score: 1

      Does iTunes force you into using a media format that only iTunes properly supports, with patents forcing people to purchase the iTunes encryptor and iTunes playback modules?

      No?

      Then get to the back of the bus, your arguement falls flat.

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    10. Re:Unfair? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      how is that different than apple?


      Is Apple a convicted monopolist ?

      No, they're not are they but Microsoft is and that is what makes the situations different.
    11. Re:Unfair? by danhuby · · Score: 1

      So the crucial difference (with Apple OS X / iTunes) is that Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS and Apple doesn't?

      So if OS X became the number one operating system, they'd have to stop shipping with iTunes? Seems odd to me that being a monopoly alone is enough to justify a different set of rules.

      It's assuming that a monopoly will always be evil, essentially. This has shown several times to be the case, but are we saying this is always the case?

    12. Re:Unfair? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      So if OS X became the number one operating system, they'd have to stop shipping with iTunes?


      No, simply selling the most popular operating system does make you a monopoly. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and the rules are therefore different.
    13. Re:Unfair? by danhuby · · Score: 1

      "There's nothing wrong with shipping useful functionality with your OS as long as it isn't leveraged to stifle competition"

      Again, how is this different to Apple/iTunes? iTunes is useful, but it only connects to the iTunes store for music downloads. It is possible to buy DRM free MP3s at a lower cost than on iTunes and import them to iTunes (e.g. with play.com in the UK) but it takes extra work and a newbie might not find it particularly easy. Thus it could be argued that Apple are using iTunes to stifle competition.

      Never thought I'd ever defend MS, but on this point I'm really not sure what the legal issue is.

    14. Re:Unfair? by danhuby · · Score: 1

      That part I can understand, but not the media player inclusion.

      Windows without WMP is less useful than with WMP, I'm not sure many would argue with that. Several free media players are available but the newbie would just want to know why Windows won't play their mp3 files.

    15. Re:Unfair? by peragrin · · Score: 4, Informative

      MSFT has complied with that part of the order. It took MSFT 3 years to comply with other parts Like licensing CIFS/SMB to third parties without the cost overhead. That is how SAMBA got the file formats.

      Because MSFT dragged their feet in complying they were fined some 2 million euros a day. This is that fine. this has nothing to do with windows media player as MSFT already took care of that part by releasing a media player free version of windows.

      Also as a side effect this is 1.3 billion less dollars that MSFT will have to buy Yahoo with. Some 6% of the cash MSFT has on hand.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    16. Re:Unfair? by juhaz · · Score: 1

      So if OS X became the number one operating system, they'd have to stop shipping with iTunes? They would probably at the very least have to discouple it from iPod, and the iTunes shop, to allow others a fair chance to enter the market.

      It's assuming that a monopoly will always be evil, essentially. This has shown several times to be the case, but are we saying this is always the case? It's eventually fairly likely to become such, and the different rules are supposed to make it less probable.

      Just shipping a media player might not be enough to get them into trouble even with the different rules, but the fact that the media player makes use of their own proprietary formats, and so leverages them in a way that would not otherwise happen, does.
    17. Re:Unfair? by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      Last I checked you can install the media player of your choice on Windows just fine. Also, WMP plays lots of non-Windows-specific formats just fine.

    18. Re:Unfair? by downix · · Score: 1

      Yes, *you* can, your PC vendor cannot, that is the issue.

      WMP can play others, but others have difficulty with .wmv, which is WMP's native format, again, that is the issue at hand.

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    19. Re:Unfair? by mrvan · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is about allowing market forces to optimize the allocation of resources. In a healthy competition, corporate profit is decreased to the minimum level of being a decent return on investment, because as long as it the profit is higher, a new player can enter the marketplace, price between the minimum level and the actual level, and make profit while capturing the market. This mechanism is hindered by branding, which reduces the comparability between otherwise equivalent products, barriers to entrance (such as high investments or lock-in) A monopoly can only exist in fields with such barriers to entrance, in MS case the enormous investments required to create a modern (desktop) OS (essentially limiting the competition to Apple and linux), and the high price users pay if they shift or use an OS that is non-standard. This is where MS is different from Google: Google has a monopoly position but could be easily replaced by a competitor as soon as their quality drops or prices increase. If google would ban all non-mozilla browsers, (a lot of) people would simply shift search engine. If MS bans winamp and itunes, (a lot of) people will rather switch to WMP than switch to another OS. Sustained monopolies are almost always bad for consumers, as prices will increase (top of my head MS has profit margins >50%, which is unheard of in normal industries). Leveraging one monopoly to get another is even worse, as that will mean higher prices and less choice in more areas. There are two ways of dealing with monopolies: nationalizing and regulating. Consider railroads: laying tracks is very expensive and it is generally a waste of resources (land and money) to lay more than one pair of tracks between two points. Thus, a railroad can easily become a (local) monopolist. In most countries in Europe, railroads were nationalized in the late nineteenth century. In the US, they were regulated, with railroad boards setting maximum prices and other mechanisms (but see books like Octopus). The electricity market is the same: power grid is very expensive to maintain and not very useful to duplicate (although some redundancy can be useful), and building power plants is enormously expensive. In most of Europe, power companies used to be nationalized (not sure about the US) [Interestingly, in the EU there is now a shift towards splitting the monopoly part of such services (building and maintaining tracks, the actual power grid) and the competition part (running trains, generating and selling electricity). ] With Microsoft, we either have to regulate or nationalize. Regulating would mean - stopping the leverage of one monopoly to create new monopolies (desktop -> browser, media player, server) - lowering barriers of entry by forcing interoperability I think they should have split off Office and IE the first time around, as there is no sane business reason for office to be windows only, and this would greatly improve the prospects of interoperability between platforms. Also, MS should be forced to only use public API between modules (ie kernel -> windowing -> applications)

    20. Re:Unfair? by Ornedan · · Score: 1

      It's assuming that a monopoly will always be evil, essentially. This has shown several times to be the case, but are we saying this is always the case?

      It's more like a monopoly that even just acts like a normal business will in effect abuse their monopoly position. And expecting a corporation to voluntarily limit their actions in order to preserve a free market just leads to disappointment, which is why those special rules exist.
    21. Re:Unfair? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      What's the threshhold for being a monopoly. Just being the most popular isn't enough. Some make of car would be the most popular, but that doesn't mean they have a monopoly. If Apple and Linux continue to make strides on the desktop, could MS have their monopoly status revoked? At what point is MS no longer a monopoly?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    22. Re:Unfair? by lwriemen · · Score: 1

      1) Apple hasn't been found to be an abusive monopolist.
      2) iPod has viable competition in the marketplace.
      3) As you've already stated, there isn't any tying of (your assertion) monopoly position to usage.

      #1 is the big issue here; without it, you're statement of unfairness would be true.

    23. Re:Unfair? by danhuby · · Score: 1


      "Apple hasn't been found to be an abusive monopolist."

      And Microsoft has, and I fully agree with that. But in relation to Windows Media Player? I can't see any abuse there. WMP supports Microsoft specific codecs and DRM in addition to many open/standard codecs, true, but content producers don't have to use the MS codecs. iTunes supports Apple specific codecs and DRM.

      Others have pointed out in reply to my original message that Windows Media Player was not the real issue here - most or all of the fine relates to charging excessive amounts for interoperability information for server software.

    24. Re:Unfair? by danhuby · · Score: 1

      "Does iTunes force you into using a media format that only iTunes properly supports"

      Does WMP? Last time I checked VLC played WMV files just fine. And content producers aren't forced to use MS codecs anyway.

      You can't play DRM-locked files elsewhere, but then files locked with Apple's DRM will only play on iTunes and iPods.

    25. Re:Unfair? by businessnerd · · Score: 1

      As others have stated, the main issue is that they are leveraging their dominant market position t push their own media player on the consumer. But there's even more to it than that, and this goes back to the whole issue of Microsoft needing to open things up more.

      I once had a discussion about media players with a co-worker who was so into Microsoft it was scary (I think he had a man crush on Bill Gates). Anyhow, I was saying that I've recently started using VLC because a) it's cross-platform (import for a Linux user) and b) it comes with every codec you'll ever need, including all of the MS ones (I hate hunting down codecs). I was recommending he and some others try it in Windows, as I've had others recommend it. His argument against using any cross-platform media player, was that it would not be optimized for Windows. He further argues that Microsoft has inside knowledge of Windows that no other developer has, which allows them to optimize WMP to run much better than any 3rd party media player, even Windows only players. His argument is valid, especially if you are looking for the most efficient player for your platform. However, it raises another issue. ONLY Microsoft has access to this Windows insider information. This is anti-competitive. The API's for Windows should be detailed enough that a 3rd party developer could create a media player that is just as optimized, if not more so. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Almost all API's for Microsoft products are "3rd Party" editions. Only Microsoft has access to the detailed versions. There have been stories about this on Slashdot in regards to MS Office, and I'm experiencing it right now with SharePoint.

      My client wants to make a lot of customizations to SharePoint, but unfortunately, the API's are not detailed enough to do some of these customizations effectively. Going forward, I probably wouldn't recommend SharePoint to anybody unless they wanted just the sraight out of the box functionality simply because customizing it is such a pain in the ass. In this case, they are shooting themselves in the foot, because SharePoint SHOULD be a platform, not a product (or at least that's how they've marketed it). Rather, it is a product that comes in a box and all implementations must fit in that box. But I digress.

      The point is, the Microsoft's openness is one of the big issues with including any non-essential software. A media player is not essential for an OS, but it is important if you want to deliver a full featured desktop environment. Including a media player is not necessarily anti-competitive, but including one that no competitor could ever compete with because of proprietary secrets, now THAT is anti-competitive.

      --
      "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
    26. Re:Unfair? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      What's the threshhold for being a monopoly. Just being the most popular isn't enough. Some make of car would be the most popular, but that doesn't mean they have a monopoly. If Apple and Linux continue to make strides on the desktop, could MS have their monopoly status revoked? At what point is MS no longer a monopoly? There is no simple rule, but two important aspects are: How difficult it is for a newcomer to get into the market, and what advantage you have just by the fact that you have a huge market share.

      For example, Apple has a huge market share in the market of portable music players. However, when you decide which player to buy, it doesn't matter one bit what players everyone else is using. You can get music from your CDs to play on every player, you can buy music online for every player. You may not be able to copy music from your friends' iPods to your player, but that would be illegal anyway. So that weighs heavily against Apple having a monopoly.

      On the other hand, when we talk about word processors, lots of people might send you documents written using a word processor that has high market share, and you would want a word processor that can read these documents. If each word processor could only read its own documents, then you would want the same word processor as everyone else. You would buy that word processor not because of its quality, but because of its market share. If I produce a better word processor, I can still not sell it, because I don't have a market share yet. That's why it is much more likely that a word processor can be a monopoly. Or an operating system.

      Windows would lose its monopoly status if customers can make their purchase decision based on price and quality, without regarding the market power that Microsoft has. Let's say Apple tells PCWorld that they can't sell Macs anymore (I don't know if they sell them anyway). That would be a bit less profit for PCWorld, but they would have more shelf space for other products. Now let's say Microsoft tells Dell that they can't sell computers with Windows anymore. Dell would be bankrupt. That is monopoly power.
    27. Re:Unfair? by danhuby · · Score: 1

      The points in your post would be valid if WMP outperformed VLC. Are you sure it does?

      It's a while since I've used Windows but I remember WMP being somewhat bloatware compared to VLC. Lots of unnecessary GUI elements. I can't say I noticed any difference in performance playing videos - they both played at the true frame rate and what more do you need than that? VLC certainly loaded faster, though.

      Dan

    28. Re:Unfair? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Let's say Apple tells PCWorld that they can't sell Macs anymore (I don't know if they sell them anyway). That would be a bit less profit for PCWorld, but they would have more shelf space for other products. Now let's say Microsoft tells Dell that they can't sell computers with Windows anymore. Dell would be bankrupt. That is monopoly power.
      That's only because Dell has centered their business around selling Windows PCs. If Apple told "Macs R Us" (a fictitious company I made up) that they were no longer allowed to sell Macs, then they would surely go bankrupt also. Unless they completely changed their business, but Dell could do that too.
      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    29. Re:Unfair? by Anspen · · Score: 1

      No, if prices in software where transparant (and MS wasn't abusing it's monopoly) a version of Windows 2000/XP with WMP would be more expensive. The money they've spent on developing it has to come from somewhere. When car makers started introducing ABS or Airbags they didn't just throw them in for free to "improve the customer experience".

    30. Re:Unfair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely.

      1. It is fine that Apple includes iTunes, etc. because they do not have a monopoly.

      2. If Apple were to obtain a monopoly (MS+linux at 5% each) then these same restrictions and fines would be applied to Apple.

      3. Monopolies are *always* evil. *ALWAYS*.

      4. Having a monopoly is clearly defined in legislation in all capitalist countries (afaik) as not only "enough" to justify a change in rules, but as *requiring* changing the rules. Any industry with a monopoly is an industry that is suffering.

  13. 1.3 billion ~= nothing by Nikademus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's amazing some people find this sum high.
    It just like EU told MS that they can continue infringe on laws as long as they give them about 10% of their benefits.
    If EU wants MS to comply fast, they just have to make a ban on MS products in Europe, so that selling MS products would be considered illegal and fined enough.

    --
    I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
    1. Re:1.3 billion ~= nothing by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      Banning MS products in Europe would be devastating to the world economy (and even worse for the European economy). The switching costs would be enormous, and then you have problems with communicating between MS-users outside Europe and non-MS-users in Europe. (The whole point of this ruling is that MS products aren't properly compatible with non-MS products.)

      $1.3 billion is a lot of money, sure, MS can afford it, but do they really think it's worth it? If they continue not to comply, the fines will increase.

    2. Re:1.3 billion ~= nothing by Nikademus · · Score: 1

      Problems communicating between MS and non MS users? Isn't that the whole point of the suit?
      If MS did follow standards, there would be no problems.

      --
      I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
    3. Re:1.3 billion ~= nothing by garett_spencley · · Score: 1

      Microsoft may be able to afford it without significantly hurting their business in the short term, but they have a responsibility to their shareholders. I'm not sure exactly what Microsoft's current value is, but it's now 1.3 billion less. That is sure to tick off any shareholder.

    4. Re:1.3 billion ~= nothing by elrous0 · · Score: 0

      IF MS followed standards, it might also drive them into bankruptcy. They depend on the ubiquity of their proprietary formats (like with Office) to survive. If they went to standardized formats, any yahoo or his brother could just clone or even top any of their products (as Firefox did with IE). It would essentially make their IP worthless, which would, in turn, make their stock worthless (since their IP *is* their company).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:1.3 billion ~= nothing by downix · · Score: 1

      microsoft has a liquid cash reserve of only $5.8 billion as of the end of trading day yesterday, based on their liquid cash reserve as of 4Q 2007 minus all cash expenditures and income since. $1.3 billion is a good chunk of that, wouldn't you say?

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    6. Re:1.3 billion ~= nothing by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      You've read what I said, reworded it and posted it as a reply... why?

    7. Re:1.3 billion ~= nothing by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      IF MS followed standards, it might also drive them into bankruptcy. They depend on the ubiquity of their proprietary formats (like with Office) to survive. If they went to standardized formats, any yahoo or his brother could just clone or even top any of their products (as Firefox did with IE). It would essentially make their IP worthless, which would, in turn, make their stock worthless (since their IP *is* their company).
      Tough titty for Microsoft.

      The world does not owe anybody a living. If you think you can make a viable business out of siting 50p-a-piss, £1-a-shit pay toilets in forests, you are free to go ahead and try. But when people start going behind the nearest tree instead, don't start crying.

      Depending on proprietary anything for your competitive advantage is generally suicidal; unless you can plan so that the entire lifecycle of your product, from conception to ultimate demise, is within the duration of legal protection. Then you make something everyone has to have, sell a shitload of them quickly and retire. (Or, if you're the RIAA/MPAA, you ensure that the duration of legal protection extends beyond the lifecycle of your product .....)
      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    8. Re:1.3 billion ~= nothing by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Banning MS products in Europe would be devastating to the world economy (and even worse for the European economy). The switching costs would be enormous, and then you have problems with communicating between MS-users outside Europe and non-MS-users in Europe. It wouldn't be devastating at all. Dell would ship gazillions of boxes with Linux. Apple would add a "Start" menu to MacOS X so that Windows users feel at home :-) And the MS-users outside Europe who feel they have problems communicating with non-MS-users in Europe would switch to OpenOffice.
    9. Re:1.3 billion ~= nothing by erroneus · · Score: 1

      No. Banning MS products wouldn't be the answer. Rescinding their copyrights in the EU would!

      Copyrights are not rights "assumed" by the owner, but a right granted and recognized by government. All the EU would need to do is refuse to recognize any Microsoft copyrights within the EU borders and to allow for the creation of the tools necessary to remove copy and other usage protection.

      It would be unprecedented, but it would be the "right" thing to do under the circumstances. It would give everyone using MS products the opportunity to keep using them while they transition over to alternatives which could conceivably take a few years in some cases. (But in reality, it would likely take far less than a year because one of the biggest problems preventing people from moving away from Windows is compatibility with their neighbors and associates! If most all of them moved to the same alternative at the same time, a bunch of those problems disappear.)

      So no... don't "ban" Microsoft in the EU... Rescind Microsoft's copyrights in the EU... effectively pirate all of Microsoft!

      *THAT* would get some attention... (and if Microsoft has been paying off the US Government well enough, we'd probably go to war with the EU!)

    10. Re:1.3 billion ~= nothing by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's pretty much what would happen, and that would be devastating, at least in the short term. A mass changeover like that is never going to go smoothly or cheaply.

    11. Re:1.3 billion ~= nothing by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      That ought to do it... MS would need to continue failing to comply for a few more years before they can justifiably be fined their entire European market share, though. Knowing their history, they probably will continue to fail to comply for a few more years - time will tell.

    12. Re:1.3 billion ~= nothing by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Justification is a matter of opinion. I believe they have been given MORE than enough time to comply and show no intention of doing so. The punishment doesn't need to be increased incrementally, but exponentially.

    13. Re:1.3 billion ~= nothing by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      Exponential is still incremental. Technically, I think they are complying with that particular ruling at the moment (the fine is for the time they wasted before complying) - it's the other investigations that are going to get them fined at every increasing rates.

  14. absolutely by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 1

    You need elite prosecutors to take on Microsoft, so it only makes sense. Now who hacked the exchange rates to honor Neelie Kroes?

    --
    Think global, act loco
  15. Guess the magically acceptable rate! by Froqen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    MS: 3.87%?
    EU: Lower
    MS: 2.98%?
    EU: Lower
    MS: 0.5%?
    EU: Lower
    MS: 0.4%?
    EU: BZZT! Too late, we are going to fine you a Billion $s.

  16. the EU says what are your RIGHTS in the EU by viraltus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well the thing is that is the EU that determines what your rights are in the EU, so if they believe you have to make you software compatible to make business in the EU, either you obey or you make business somewhere else.

    --
    Dear /. CENSORS that set people's Karma to Neutral when you disagree with them: FUCK YOU!!
    1. Re:the EU says what are your RIGHTS in the EU by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

      Ah yes.......democracy in action.

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    2. Re:the EU says what are your RIGHTS in the EU by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 0

      Well the thing is that is the EU that determines what your rights are in the EU, so if they believe you have to make you software compatible to make business in the EU, either you obey or you make business somewhere else.

      Let's hope the politicians responsible are still around to punish for the horrible consequences of such a naive decision.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  17. Did you see that? by Eggplant62 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Porcine-mounted aviatrices with huge breasts just flew past my window!!

    I'm absolutely stunned that someone, some government, finally got up the nuts to face off with the Monopoly. Took 10 years to get done, but FINALLY!! Think we'll see some big changes at Microsoft soon? Watch carefully. The fireworks are about to start.

    1. Re:Did you see that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch carefully. The fireworks are about to start.

      I just saw a ICBM whizz by outside my window. Are those the fireworks you menti[CARRIER LOST]

    2. Re:Did you see that? by sundarvenkata · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This can hardly be called as a blow to MSFT considering their revenue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft

    3. Re:Did you see that? by pr0nbot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's celebrate when the fine has been paid.

    4. Re:Did you see that? by auric_dude · · Score: 1

      I feel that those in power have just started to notice that a growing proportion of their voters are not too fond of Microsoft and as elections within the EU happen quite often then a hard line taken against any and all Microsoft infractions may well help them to gain some kudos in the eyes of their voters.

    5. Re:Did you see that? by jandersen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No need to be surprised here - court cases against large corporations do take long time. The really amazing thing is the fact that many Slashdot comments will actually defend Microsoft's behaviour, as if they were above the law because they have loads of money.

      Perhaps this will awaken people to the fact that in modern society nobody is above - or below - the law.

    6. Re:Did you see that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont know how you see it, but 9.46% of their net income isn't minor either. =)

    7. Re:Did you see that? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whats so great here? Is this the principled move you truly think it is?

      Essentially we have a pan-government organization that is demanding one billion dollars to continue to do sale in its realm. This money is not earmarked for social programs or anything that would benefit humanity, but more for bureaucrats.

      The principled thing to do is to say "Your products cannot be sold here for 5 years. Be gone." Instead the EU just took the money. I dont see how the EU is better than MS. They are both attempting to maximize their profits with the authority/market they have.

      Im not some crazy anti-government type or some extreme free market type, but this is a significant fine and a significant precedent. In the long run this cant be good for other companies. "What? your ads arent in french and spanish and german? That's a billion dollars."

    8. Re:Did you see that? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Save it for when Microsoft pays up, or complies with whatever caused this fine originally.

    9. Re:Did you see that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Essentially we have a pan-government organization that is demanding one billion dollars to continue to do sale in its realm. This money is not earmarked for social programs or anything that would benefit humanity, but more for bureaucrats. The money will go towards lowering the taxes of the member-nations. It's not exactly saving starving kids in Africa, but it's benefitting the member-states nonetheless.

      The principled thing to do is to say "Your products cannot be sold here for 5 years. Be gone." Instead the EU just took the money. I dont see how the EU is better than MS. They are both attempting to maximize their profits with the authority/market they have. Where do you get those 5 years from? If they don't comply they'll get smacked again, if they do comply the fine will have achieved its desired effect.

      Im not some crazy anti-government type or some extreme free market type, but this is a significant fine and a significant precedent. In the long run this cant be good for other companies. "What? your ads arent in french and spanish and german? That's a billion dollars." If your ads aren't in french and spanish it's hurting your own business, no need for an antitrust-case.
  18. Does anyone else think.... by Ritontor · · Score: 1, Funny

    that maybe they timed the fine to coincide with the value of $1.337 billion?

    --
    Perhaps the answer to the problem of teenagers dropping bricks from motorway and railway bridges is to sue Tetris.
    1. Re:Does anyone else think.... by hilather · · Score: 1

      Haha, wish I had mod points, I didn't even see that until you mentioned it. leet pwnage by the EU.

  19. I'm not sure what's been release, but... by WiglyWorm · · Score: 1

    Do you guys think it will be anything that will help with development of WINE?

  20. Re:I hope they do not pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Then those of us in euroland who actually *want* to use MS products will simply kick those pan-european proto-Trotskyite apparachiks out of Brussels and out of our lives. For Good!!1

  21. Re:I hope they do not pay by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

    and then Europe closed Microsoft business completely in Europe.

    and I hope you never visit here, if that's your attitude to whether European law should be followed when in Europe.

  22. "Steelie" Neelie Kroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Before everyone starts slagging off the EU and Nellie Kroes, please take a look at a recent BBC interview with her here, its very good

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/inbusiness/inbusiness_20080124.shtml

    She really is for the consumer and for competition, this is NOT a EU vs US thing.

  23. MS would just stop shipping, no big deal by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    This is only about the O/S. I'm told MS make most of their profits from other products like Office. If the EU told them not to ship any more O/S copies, I would expect that we'd just get pirated copies coming in. Under that circumstance, MS would have nothing to gain by preventing the piracy and would just turn a blind eye. They'd still be allowed to sell commercial products.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:MS would just stop shipping, no big deal by Nikademus · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that companies could afford running pirated, unsupported and unpatched software? Furthermore if pirated MS software is also fined by the EU.

      --
      I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
  24. It would be interesting... by Panaqqa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...to see what the reaction would be if Microsoft indicated that it was simply not going to pay the fines. They could go further and say that attempts to force payment would result in an amount equal to the fines going to pay for moving part of their European workforce to a non-European location. Oh - and those Server 2008 licenses needed to run the European government computing facilities? Not for sale, and by the way, all other support and licensing contracts will not be renewed after they expire.

    I would be very interested to see what would happen if a tech giant decided to play hardball with a government. After all, the Microsoft decision makers that count would be beyond the reach of the European authorities in terms of arrest and imprisonment.

    1. Re:It would be interesting... by Shados · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thats what MS used to do. Its not really in a situation to do that anymore though.

    2. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you spell "shareholder lawsuit"? I wish they'd do what you're suggesting, but I doubt even MS is that stupid and arrogant.

    3. Re:It would be interesting... by Skrynesaver · · Score: 1

      Oh - and those Server 2008 licenses needed to run the European government computing facilities? Not for sale
      I'd be fairly cool with that, after all they release 2008 today and suddenly Hotmail fails all over the world for reasons they refuse to disclose , anyone care to bet against migration to 2008 ?

      Then we are reminded of their existing convictions for monopoly abuse and refusal to conform to the rule of law as though being a large corporation made an entity immune to European courts. Not the happiest of launch days for their new server platform.

      --
      "Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
    4. Re:It would be interesting... by mouko · · Score: 0

      Guess that just means that the EU governments will be moving to open source quicker than they planned. I think they are getting tired of playing M$'s games anyhow.

    5. Re:It would be interesting... by apathy+maybe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is called being a sovereign government, it means having an army, police, courts etc.

      It means that the EU can decided to confiscate any and all Microsoft property and Microsoft can do fuck all about it. It means that they can simply use those Server 2008 licences, and Microsoft can do fuck all about it.

      If the EU wanted, they could drop Microsoft and develop an OS based around X/GNU/Linux, and screw Microsoft. You have to remember that until this point the EU has played by the rules of the game. But in the EU, the EU writes the rules, and they can change them as and when they like.

      If Microsoft tried to play hard-ball with the EU, they would lose.

      --
      I wank in the shower.
    6. Re:It would be interesting... by Xuranova · · Score: 1

      MS will file an appeal somewhere and wait for the DOJ(I think thats the group who came to their def last time) to tell the EU to simmer down. If I was MS, after verifying most of my valuables are not situated in the EU, I'd tell them to 'blow me' and proceed to business as usual.

      --
      "There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
    7. Re:It would be interesting... by daveewart · · Score: 1

      Oh - and those Server 2008 licenses needed to run the European government computing facilities? ...

      Why would anyone actually need Windows 2008 Server for anything? If Microsoft's response to this fine is that European governments and government/commercial entities have to stop using Microsoft products, then I'll be dancing in the streets.

      The fact that this may be the case -- the stopping use of MS products, that is, not my dancing -- almost certainly means that Microsoft won't do such a thing.

      --
      "If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
    8. Re:It would be interesting... by cptdondo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't really understand the scale of government, do you? I work for a small (tiny, miniscule, microscopic) government agency. We have maybe 50 or 80 employees. Our budget for next 5 years is in the hundreds of millions (US$). I award contracts worth tens of millions of dollars on a routine basis.

      If MS was to try and pull that, we'd contract with Red Hat, Novell, somebody, and be up and running before the licenses expired. There's only a few apps that are Windows only that don't have linux equivalents; if someone was to throw a few million at it they'd be ported to linux in no time, even if it meant running with wine in the interim.

      Try a stunt like that with a real government that can throw billions at the problem, and MS would find itself in the freezer. Remember, governments can pass laws; they can easily pass a law suspending copyright until they get it sorted out.

    9. Re:It would be interesting... by weber · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh - and those Server 2008 licenses needed to run the European government computing facilities? Not for sale,

      Oh - and those licenses, we don't need them: you copyrights are void.
    10. Re:It would be interesting... by metalcup · · Score: 1
      hmm.,

      If MS threatens something that is vital for EU's or Europe's functioning (like, say, Servers), then the EU (or EU nations) can just pass a law saying all MS products 'belong' to the EU, and they can reverse engineer/do whatever they want with them. - popularly called nationalisation (e.g. what they are doing with the Northern rock bank)

      This is obviously a bad idea in terms of property rights, etc, and Euro-US relationship. But it will scar MS for life, since which govt would trust MS if they do that?

      my 2 cents
      --
      "Laziness is an optimisation protocol"
    11. Re:It would be interesting... by vally_manea · · Score: 1

      That probably won't happen since not doing business in the EU would cost them a huge pile of money, because last I heard the EU as a whole is the largest economy in the world(too lazy to dig up references for that).

    12. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't the first one to ponder this (check posts from similar topics - on MS fines - in the past). Doing that is NOT an option for Microsoft (at ALL). Note that countries (and EU) are sovereign and they have UNLIMITED power (legally, they can do "anything"). So they can invalidate all MS copyrights and patents and seize all source code and real property and bank accounts of MS in the EU, to say the least.

      From a practical point of view, it is a non-starter as MS Board of Directors is supposed to protect the shareholder interests -- and EU is a VERY LARGE market. If MS "plays hardball" as in loses the market, MS shareholders will revolt and heads will roll (e.g., CEO getting fired) and the Board of Directors will get thrown out (if they support the CEO) and a new Board appointed that has a more reasonable attitude.

    13. Re:It would be interesting... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      If Microsoft did some or all the things you mentioned, I guess it would be dead for Europe - Microsoft would never sell a penny's worth of software in the European Union. As a bonus, the fines would still be collected through a lengthy (but ultimately successful) battle at the WTO. The USA may whine a bit at first, but even they have bigger interests than MS to protect.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    14. Re:It would be interesting... by 1.000.000 · · Score: 1

      I would like to see Microsoft make some moves like that too.

      Then the EU can bring out the big guns:

      - Seize all Microsoft property in the EU
      - Void all Microsoft patents (and copyright and so on) in the EU

      Hey basically the EU could make all current and future Microsoft software open source. Who needs a license then?

      Moves like these would definitely piss off someone in the USA, but with an economy close to recession its not a good idea to start an economic conflict with the worlds leading economical power, the EU, over a software company.

      --
      This is a viral signature. You are now infected!
    15. Re:It would be interesting... by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      Well like many forms of "IP", there is nothing stopping the whole of the EU from just pirating any version of Windows they like. Or is Microsoft going to send in the US military?

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    16. Re:It would be interesting... by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I really can't see the entire EU giving in to extortion, even if it is from MSFT. Whether it is voiding all MSFT copyrights in the EU or simply a mandate that MSFT offices be kicked out of western Europe (and not be used in government offices), something is going to give.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    17. Re:It would be interesting... by stonewolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, it would be interesting to see a major corporation declare itself to be above the law. They already act that way. And MS clearly believes they are above the law. But, they have never made the mistake of publicly declaring that they are beyond the law.

      But...

      I had the misfortune to have to do business with MS in the '90s before the first judgment came down against them in the US. They told us privately that if the US government tried to break them up they would just move across the border to Canada or just buy a small country, preferably an island, and move the whole company out of the US. They also threatened, privately, to just stop selling Windows and technical support to the US government.

      I was working for a baby bell at the time and so we were able to explain to them what it is like for a company to operate for 60 years under judicial supervision. Not nice. In the US a federal court judge can throw the entire executive staff of a company into prison for as long as he likes if they pull the kind of thing you suggest MS pull. They can appoint people to run the company until such time as it is in full compliance with court orders. And, a federal judge can send US marshals anywhere in the world to capture these people. (Yes, it may be kidnapping in the country where they reside... but the judge can still do it), and a Federal Judge can request that the President use military force to capture some one. So yeah, they can send in the Marines... Ok, that last bit is very unlikely to happen, but it could.

      I do not know what the EU can do against a company that flaunts its laws. But, I am sure that at least some of the member states have laws similar to those is the US.

      Just an example... I once worked for a fellow who was indicted for murder in the state of Illinois. He lived in the state of Utah and Utah declined to extradite him. He now is unable to leave the state of Utah. If he sets foot out side of Utah he can be arrested and most likely will be extradited to Illinois where he will be tried for murder. The same could happen to all the board of directors and all the executives of MS. They could be extradited to the EU to face criminal charges there, or if the US refuses to extradite them they could find that they can never safely leave the US again for fear of being extradited to the EU and spending a large part of the rest of their lives in jail.

      No country can fail to react swiftly and harshly to any attack on the sovereignty and that is exactly what MS would be doing if they did what you described.

      Stonewolf

    18. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would be very interesting. It would speed up the already ongoing process of adapting and converting EU systems to open source products. It would also speedup the recession in the USA.

    19. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I recall WTOs ruling to allow Antigua copyright violations as fine for the US.

      A reaction to non-compliance to this ruling might be something like that: Allowing copyright violations for some time. Also perhaps some EU-internal tax on MS products.

      I don't think MS will even try to go down that road, although I personally would love to see the end in it, perhaps that could be the action or reason to turnover OS business for Linux, MAC Os or others as a result of some high tax on MS products or delivery problems due to court rulings..

    20. Re:It would be interesting... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Every time MS vs. EU is discussed on slashdot someone drags this stupid argument out of the closet.

      MS would be very, very screwed if they would try to do anything like this. Let me put things into perspective:

      The EU area has a GPD of $14.51 trillion, while MS has a revenue of around $51 billion, globally. The EU has the power of the police, government, military behind them which can seize MS's assets and if MS decides to pull out of EU they would leave billions in assets behind. If events reach that point, EU given the national security clauses in copyright conventions would simply suspend MS copyright in Europe while Europe moves to Linux/BSD/Solaris at a hugely accelerated pace. Given that the EU is the largest economy block in the world, everyone else would be forced to use those open technologies and MS would find itself with a pretty minimal market share in a few years.

      Even Microsoft isn't this stupid to make a move anything like this.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    21. Re:It would be interesting... by Shotgun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is obviously a bad idea in terms of property rights, etc, and Euro-US relationship. But it will scar MS for life, since which govt would trust MS if they do that?

      There is that point, and then there is the aftermath. A hurricane can kill thousands. The following unsanitary conditions can kill millions.

      In the same way, M$ pulls out of EU, with severe scars and loss of sales. That's the hurricane.

      The EU turns to open standards. All multi-nationals have to turn to open standards in lockstep (Re: ROHS - a EU standard, but you can't find an electronics supplier that doesn't try to comply). All foreign (to US) governments see what is going on, and turn to open standards (not wanting to be the next in line for "Microsoft's Wrath). EU investment in open-source OS variants pushes the standard to unprecedented heights. Multi-nationals and governments adopt the "new and improved" Linux/BSD/whatever. Cheap box retailers have to install multiple "Linux Lines" to their assembly plants to keep up with the corporate and governmental demand, and the boxes are now slightly cheaper than the M$ boxes (because, they don't have the M$ tax, and the commercial guys pay Dell, et.al. to install the same free-trial/adware on the Linux boxes) M$ would see all foreign and a major portion of domestic sales disappear practically overnight. Microsoft would be irrelevant in 5 years or less.

      Yeah, Microsoft could try thumbing their noses at the EU, but they'll be thumbing that nose with a razor knife. We call that "Cutting your nose off to spite your face." It is not considered a smart move by the intelligencia.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    22. Re:It would be interesting... by Panaqqa · · Score: 1

      All of what you say is very true, of course. This whole thing is more an interesting thought exercise than anything else. I must admit though that I am very surprised that anyone from Microsoft ever mentioned the option of playing hardball with the US government outside of secret high level meetings within the company itself. I was certain that internally they would have discussed it at some length, but to actually express sentiments such as those to a customer strikes me as very foolhardy. I'm guessing that maybe it was just one or two loose cannons?

    23. Re:It would be interesting... by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      And the EU reacts by seizing all Microsoft's EU property including buildings, bank accounts, and company cars, and revokes all Microsoft copyrights within the EU. They install as many copies of Windows Server as they need while spending the seized assets on migrating away from MS products.

    24. Re:It would be interesting... by garcia · · Score: 1

      Thats what MS used to do. Its not really in a situation to do that anymore though.

      Why not? I guarantee you that the EU would spend more money and more time moving off of the Microsoft platform than would be economically viable for the next 15 to 25 years.

      Microsoft isn't going to end up doing anything they want -- just like they didn't here in the US.

    25. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah, because Microsoft would never be allowed to pull their business out of Europe leaving a huge unemployed workforce and moving it to another location.

      I am sorry in your delusional thinking but how exactly would the EU get these licenses for 2008 already and as usual the socialist around here come out with their fantasy thinking. EU still has to pay for the license renewals and if I were MS I would raise the price for the EU.

      The EU would lose out on this one with loss of income which would outweigh the fine and other foreign companies ready to take the business from Europe.

    26. Re:It would be interesting... by KokorHekkus · · Score: 1

      To play that kind of hardball they would have to shut down their EU divisions since the boardmembers there certainly are within legal reach. You can bet that the persons on the board of those divisions wouldn't want to take a personal legal risk for Microsoft by disobeying local laws. And if Microsoft would pull out there would certainly be a stockholder lawsuit wondering why they just dumped 25% of their market. Add to that there would be worldwide distrust regarding Microsoft - the question would be "can we trust Microsoft not to do the same thing here as in the EU or should we buy from someone else"

    27. Re:It would be interesting... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Apple, Sun and Linux vendors would LOVE that. Microsoft wouldn't be able to play hard ball with the EU since their shareholders would crucify them.

    28. Re:It would be interesting... by Mikkeles · · Score: 1
      'Even Microsoft isn't this stupid to make a move anything like this.'

      Actually, I think they are. Hubris has a long history.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    29. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love to see Microsoft refuse to pay. The first thing that would happen would be that Microsoft would stop doing business in the EU, halving their revenues overnight. The second thing that would happen would be that the EU would get the money anyway by seizing Microsoft's assets, including recognition of any copyrights. The third thing that would happen would be that the EU would distribute copies of Microsoft's software to anybody in the EU to allow continuity of business operations for everybody in the EU relying on Microsoft software. The fourth thing that would happen would be massive investment and increase in sales for all of Microsoft's competitors, including Free Software. The fifth thing that would happen would be massive damage to Microsoft's business in the rest of the world as the increase in investments and revenue of their competitors starts to pay off. The sixth thing that would happen would be a shareholder lawsuit, with all of Microsoft's shareholders suing the board.

      But of course, we'll never see that happen, because no matter how stupid or megalomaniac Microsoft executives are, they would not take this course of action that would so obviously result in corporate suicide. Not a lot can kill Microsoft. This would.

    30. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European countries and the US have extradition treaties. Ballmer and other MS execs could be rounded up by US Marshalls and put on a plane if the EU would issue warrants for criminal contempt, but let's be realistic. I highly doubt it would ever come to that.

      I think there are other assets to sieze that would be even more painful than cash. I'm sure MS has Internet sites hosts on the continent. Could HotMail Europe go dark? What about all the XBoxs in the distribution channel and games and software.... It boggles the mind what they could sieze and shutdown.

      I think that fine will put a real dent in their hostile takeover attempt of Yahoo!.

    31. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe is not dependant on microsoft, really.

      For example, french government has partially switched and is switching a lot more to Linux. Here in Finland, the public administration uses a lot of linux. Sure, most european workstations use Windows (for example the foreign ministry of finland in which I worked in IT department) but don't even joke that the servers would be running them.

      Also, as said earlier, if EU chooses we don't need licenses, we don't, no biggie.

    32. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illinois and Utah aren't countries

    33. Re:It would be interesting... by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      I am sorry in your delusional thinking but how exactly would the EU get these licenses for 2008 already and as usual the socialist around here come out with their fantasy thinking. EU still has to pay for the license renewals and if I were MS I would raise the price for the EU.
      The only reason why European governments need licences to run Microsoft software in the first place, is that the EU make them get licences for all the software they run. The EU have the power to change this, by bestowing the privilege to use Microsoft software directly; and Microsoft can't do a blind thing about it if they do.
      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    34. Re:It would be interesting... by adavies42 · · Score: 1

      At which point their WGA checks all start mysteriously failing....

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
    35. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need to just pass the fine to their EU customers. Do the math and project out what this fine plus another 2 years of fines will cost and build that into the price of EU licenses. Yes, it is perfectly legal to do this. It's part of cost of doing business. Then pay the fine and wait for other fines. Then start a serious marketing campaign telling the citizens of the EU that their government is forcing MS to charge them more. I understand everyone wants to screw the great evil MS in this forum, but this is a little out there, I'd like to see what the EU would do if the US fined an EU company this heavily.

    36. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As was mentioned earlier that would probably run afoul of WIPO rules and would likely be met with a complaint to WIPO by the U.S.
      If countries and whatever the EU is called (honestly can't remember the term) start unilaterally declaring foreign copyrights void, the whole system goes to hell.

    37. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically the government can claim Eminent Domain if it's considered critical to the country or important for national security. They could in fact nationalize Microsoft since Microsoft has stubbornly continued to function as a monopoly. They wouldn't do it under most circumstances but if their lawyers told them they could do what you said they were idiots. I'm guessing it was ignorance by a few executives. Other companies have had technical assets fall under Eminent Domain so they might be in for the shock of their lives if they tried to pull that little number. Trying a scorched earth approach of destroying information would result in federal prison sentences. Microsoft is powerful but ultimately there are a few laws that trump all others when it comes to the security of the government or even out economy.

    38. Re:It would be interesting... by hisredrighthand · · Score: 1

      I don't think shareholders would endorse Microsoft giving up a market that accounts for 30+ percent of their annual revenues to escape a one-time fine that is only a fraction of those revenues. Moving all their European R&D to other countries would cost M$ a fortune, interrupting the development of new products, while the loss of 10-15.000 jobs would not cause any significant disruption to the European labour market.

      And if Microsoft did as you proposed, they would lose any means to enforce their Copyright in Europe, so former clients could keep on using their products - Support is mostly done by third parties anyway. In the long run however, many corporate clients would look for alternatives, pushing the development of alternatives to M$ products. Since nearly all relevant alternatives in the various segments today are open source, this would help to make open source alternatives better and more attractive to customers world-wide. And that's exactly what Microsoft doesn't want to happen.

    39. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but the judge can still do it), and a Federal Judge can request that the President use military force to capture some one. So yeah, they can send in the Marines... Ok, that last bit is very unlikely to happen, but it could. It's happened before. Talk to Manuel Noriega about that one. Apparently even being the absolute dictator of a sovereign nation isn't always sufficient proof against a US Federal indictment.... I suspect that going after a CEO would be small potatoes compared to knocking off a government, even a small one.

    40. Re:It would be interesting... by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      *checks user ID*
      Yep, you are pretty new here.

      Read just about any thread on copyright and DRM on /. and see if you can't find at least 5 methods and tools for the EU to temporarily or permanently waive/bypass the licensing conditions of their current MS software.
      Now, for fun, let's look at the other spectre you laughably try to raise. All those IT professionals will be out of jobs because there are no positions at MS in the EU. If I were in charge of a socialist government that just got that slap in the face from a corporation, I'd put an incentive plan on the newly unemployed professionals who just might have a bone to pick with MS that if they provide assistance to OSS packages that replace MS software.
      Something like that could easily take MS from shooting themselves in the foot they have in the EU to a ricochet that blows their corporate brains out. And I honestly don't think they haven't considered that.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    41. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, very funny, a company attacking one of the largest governments in the world. Really, what do you think microsoft's share holders would do if they tried a stunt like that?

    42. Re:It would be interesting... by Goalie_Ca · · Score: 1

      I heard MS's two biggest customers were the US government and the UK government. Clearly they need support from governments.

      --

      ----
      Go canucks, habs, and sens!
    43. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought you understood government?
      Even if they wanted to switch everything over, it... would........ move............ slowly.................

    44. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen

    45. Re:It would be interesting... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Illinois and Utah aren't countries

      True, but the same principal applies. See De Beers. For over a decade their executives had to avoid travel to the US or countries that would extradite them there.

    46. Re:It would be interesting... by stonewolf · · Score: 1

      We got this line from everyone we met at MS. The loudest fellow was an ex-patriot Brit who seemed to have no concept of law at all. In fact, very few of the people we talked to at MS and any real concept of the law. I think it was an expression of their culture more than anything else. The rank and file believed that they were in the right, that they were the good guys, and that anyone who opposed them were the bad guys. Very odd corporate culture.

      Stonewolf

    47. Re:It would be interesting... by stonewolf · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.... You don't know much about the US do you.

      Except for a few specific powers that have been given up to the Federal Government Utah and Illinois are every bit as much countries as are France and Germany. And, with the way the EU seems to be going the differences in sovereignty between Utah, Illinois, France, and Germany are getting smaller every day. Note that Utah refused to extradite the fellow to Illinois because the law that defines murder in Utah is different from the law that defines murder in Illinois and under Utah law the fellow had not, and could not, have committed murder.

      Tell me, do you need an extradition hearing to move an indicted criminal from Nice to Paris? How about from France to Germany?

      Stonewolf

    48. Re:It would be interesting... by Ernesto+Alvarez · · Score: 1

      You know there are patched versions of microsoft apps that aren't affected by WGA checks. If they get to the point where they declare MS copyrights invalid, what makes you think they won't allow (in fact encourage) the distribution of whatever cracking software they need.

      Assuming they don't make their own cracked version. The EU is a big and powerful customer, and they certainly have access to the source code of most MS apps.

    49. Re:It would be interesting... by dwye · · Score: 1
      > I do not know what the EU can do against a company that flaunts its laws.

      The EU is already flaunting its own laws. The word that you (probably) want is flouted.

      Sorry, but along with impactful, that mistake is one of my pet hates. And yes, I realize that flouted sounds like it means that MS is playing a musical instrument, but that is the right word, nonetheless.

    50. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm... for a short time there would be a lot of work for Linux support staff in Europe?

      And in the meantime legislation would be passed to force maintainance of existing contracts at reasonable rates.

      What did you think would happen? We don't have any sick mythologies like an 'unbreakable' constitution over here!

    51. Re:It would be interesting... by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      Yo! Ever heard of compulsory licensing? Currently employed by Brazil(someone WILL correct me if I'm wrong) for HIV treatment drugs.

    52. Re:It would be interesting... by stonewolf · · Score: 1

      Thank you, I hate making that kind of mistake. I believe that was result of a typo and a spell checker error.

      Thank You Very Much,

      Stonewolf

    53. Re:It would be interesting... by JAlexoi · · Score: 1
      They actually could do that with US, since MS is a LARGE financial contributor to US. Not so in EU. If they would try to pull that off with EU, assets would be seized, subsidiaries disbanded and probably would have temporary compulsory licensing. The $$$ spent in EU for MS products WOULD STAY in EU, so EU would win.

      Yeah, it would be interesting to see a major corporation declare itself to be above the law. They already act that way. And MS clearly believes they are above the law. But, they have never made the mistake of publicly declaring that they are beyond the law.

      But...

      I had the misfortune to have to do business with MS in the '90s before the first judgment came down against them in the US. They told us privately that if the US government tried to break them up they would just move across the border to Canada or just buy a small country, preferably an island, and move the whole company out of the US. They also threatened, privately, to just stop selling Windows and technical support to the US government.

      I was working for a baby bell at the time and so we were able to explain to them what it is like for a company to operate for 60 years under judicial supervision. Not nice. In the US a federal court judge can throw the entire executive staff of a company into prison for as long as he likes if they pull the kind of thing you suggest MS pull. They can appoint people to run the company until such time as it is in full compliance with court orders. And, a federal judge can send US marshals anywhere in the world to capture these people. (Yes, it may be kidnapping in the country where they reside... but the judge can still do it), and a Federal Judge can request that the President use military force to capture some one. So yeah, they can send in the Marines... Ok, that last bit is very unlikely to happen, but it could.

      I do not know what the EU can do against a company that flaunts its laws. But, I am sure that at least some of the member states have laws similar to those is the US.

      Just an example... I once worked for a fellow who was indicted for murder in the state of Illinois. He lived in the state of Utah and Utah declined to extradite him. He now is unable to leave the state of Utah. If he sets foot out side of Utah he can be arrested and most likely will be extradited to Illinois where he will be tried for murder. The same could happen to all the board of directors and all the executives of MS. They could be extradited to the EU to face criminal charges there, or if the US refuses to extradite them they could find that they can never safely leave the US again for fear of being extradited to the EU and spending a large part of the rest of their lives in jail.

      No country can fail to react swiftly and harshly to any attack on the sovereignty and that is exactly what MS would be doing if they did what you described.

      Stonewolf
    54. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be very interested to see what would happen if a tech giant decided to play hardball with a government.

      They'd lose. Next!

    55. Re:It would be interesting... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure there are extradition treaties between EU members and the US. It wouldn't be too hard to drag Microsoft directors kicking and screaming to the EU.

      Non-payment is not an option here, and neither is pulling out of the EU or not selling to EU governments (a shareholder lawsuit would crucify the BOD for the last two). That leaves no choice, which is the way it should be for businesses who break laws.

    56. Re:It would be interesting... by Girish+the+great · · Score: 1

      If the government is so amazing, why doesn't it establish a government owned software company and start writing software as well as Microsoft?? It is not the Microsoft Building which writes software It is not the huge array of machines that write the software It is the smart people who work at microsoft for profit incentives who write software. You wouldn't be sitting on a computer and posting such trash, if people like Bill gates or Steve Wozniak hadn't started software and hardware companies. Windows Vista, Windows XP, MS Office are all built by Microsoft for their own profit, the government or any other entity has no right to a single line of code in those softwares. It is completely upto MS whether to release such data or not. And mark my words, this action by the EU court is not the beginning of a great development, It is the beginning of disaster. It is the most horrific thing a government could have done. At the core of it, EU is simply saying that "Give all the research and development to us for free" WHY? By what right? Companies like Microsoft have already given us so much. It has created so many industries and given employment to so many people. It has bought efficiency into so many walks of life. Think before you write such nonsense.

    57. Re:It would be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are already many governments world wide that have moved from a Windows infrastructure to a Linux based infrastructure ... if push comes to shove, Microsoft will lose and lose BIG!

      And don't forget, there is more to Europe than just governments, there are many industries here that Mircosoft will not want to lose.

      It is not in Microsofts interest to allow their competition to gain such a large professional market unchallenged!

    58. Re:It would be interesting... by stonewolf · · Score: 1

      In terms of gross revenue MS is the 50th largest corporation in the US with gross income of $44 billion. MS is growing fairly quickly but it is not keeping up with the rest of the largest US corporations and is slipping down the list every year. OTOH the US GDP for 2007 was a little better than $14 trillion dollars (that from revised numbers released today). That means that MS is a very small percentage of the US GDP. Shutting them down or having them leave the country would be a minor blow to the US economy, not one we would likely notice. In other words they do not have the ability to blackmail the US. No company does, not even Walmart, and Walmart really is a big company.

      BTW, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) the GDP of the US and the GDP of the EU are not that much different. The EU GDP is between 5 and 10 percent larger than the US GDP. OTOH, the EU GDP is smaller than the NAFTA GDP.

      Stonewolf

  25. Re:You're wrong by lwriemen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's more than Linux out there to put on desktops. eComStation, Mac OSX, Solaris, etc.

    Games and greeting card software are the only place users would be hurting for support, and those are probably represented OK on the Mac.

  26. .NET dev by wiredog · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm fond of .net too. Mainly because it is a decent wrapper for all the Win32 API stuff (quick: How many string types are there in Windows?), plus a decent wrapper for the crawling horror that is COM. I once had to write software that interfaced with the COM MAPI. Now that's all wrapped up in .net.

    1. Re: .NET dev by plague3106 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You must be a pretty poor .Net developer if you think its just a wrapper..

  27. 1.337 billion! by Subm · · Score: 4, Funny

    1.337 billion just can't be a coincidence.

    It's clear evidence the EU lawyers are leet and MS is suxxxorz who got pwned. I can see the court transcript:

    EU Lawyers: We get signal
    MS Lawyers: What!
    EU Lawyers: Main screen turn on
    MS Lawyers: It's you!!
    EU Lawyers: How are you gentlemen!!
    EU Lawyers: All your base are belong to us!!
    MS Lawyers: ...
    EU Lawyers: 1.337 billion Profit!

    Now that's great justice!

  28. Where will this money go? by QJimbo · · Score: 1

    It'd be cool to see it given to fund OSS projects or something like that.

    1. Re:Where will this money go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will get spent on sustaining and extending the bureaucratic mechanisms of the EU. The bureaucrats that made this decision happen to be part of that same mechanism.

  29. The Solution by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    Microsoft simply announce they are ceasing all operations in the EU as of March 1, 2008. All customers will be given a copy of Linux.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:The Solution by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Microsoft simply announce they are ceasing all operations in the EU as of March 1, 2008. All customers will be given a copy of ... ... Windows. If MS ceases all operations in EU, they cannot enforce copyright. Free softare anyone?
    2. Re:The Solution by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

      And no updates.

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    3. Re:The Solution by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Microsoft simply announce they are ceasing all operations in the EU as of March 1, 2008. All customers will be given a copy of Linux.

      Gee where to start with this one. First, doing that would break contracts they have with literally thousands of multinational corporations who would all sue them in the courts of a country they are doing business in. By the time that was all over, MS would be broke and all their rights would be owned by someone.

      Second, punishing their own customers in this way would be an extreme case of antitrust abuse and the EU would probably confiscate their intellectual property including the copyrights to the windows and MS Office software. The US, as a Berne signatory would be obligated to respect that copyright transfer and MS would be banned from selling Windows in the US as well. (Contrary to popular opinion here, the courts in both the US and EU have seized intellectual property rights in the past, mostly in bankruptcies.)

      Third, if by some manipulation of the US government MS managed to keep the US from transferring their rights and they could still sell Windows in the US, the international courts would sanction the US and since the source code for Windows has been supplied to numerous governments and businesses under the "shared source" agreement the EU would have no problem acquiring a copy and auctioning off the rights to use it to one or more European companies who could develop a fork of it or open sourcing it.

      Fourth, as an international corporation, MS has a lot of assets overseas, including in the EU and their corporate officers probably travel a bit. Those assets would be instantly seized and the state of their executives would be a bit like DeBeers, where they have to be very careful not to travel to the US or anywhere that might arrest them and extradite them to the US for prosecution.

      Fifth, ignoring all of the above, MS would have just walked away from roughly 30% of the world's wealth and an even larger portion of the world's businesses. They would have forced the creation of their own largest rival (either using the Windows source, OS X, Linux, or some combination) not just for businesses in the EU, but also for all of the world's largest businesses who like standardizing across their operations. Basically, they would be creating exactly their own worst fear, a viable competitor they have to bid against.

  30. What exactly do the EU want from Microsoft by jonwil · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are there file formats, network protocols, APIs or other items Microsoft have not yet published that the EU wants them to publish? Is the license attached to the ones they have published still not acceptable to the EU? Are there still issues with Microsoft bundling stuff with Windows that the EU doesn't want them to bundle?

    1. Re:What exactly do the EU want from Microsoft by downix · · Score: 1

      They are published with no access. Remember the rules Microsoft attached to them prevents any usage by a product that could even remotely be used for an enterprise.

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
  31. I just hope you work for Microsoft by viraltus · · Score: 4, Funny

    please please pleeeeeaase... take windows away from those bad europeans! give them a lesson! pleeeeeease.

    --
    Dear /. CENSORS that set people's Karma to Neutral when you disagree with them: FUCK YOU!!
  32. Well, they do actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    1. Re:Well, they do actually... by Spudds · · Score: 1
      I found this pretty interesting from the FAQ:

      Where does the money go?
      The penalty payment is paid into the EU Budget. It does not increase the budget, but reduces the contribution from Member States and so from taxpayers. Which means MicroSoft is literally paying people's taxes in the E.U.

      In the U.S. the answer would be:
      "In the pockets of elected officials"

  33. Now what the EU need to do next... by kazade84 · · Score: 1

    ...is to ban the bundling of Windows with new PCs. If the customer wants Windows they should pay for it separately as an entity in itself and preferably with a choice between other operating systems.

    1. Re:Now what the EU need to do next... by alen · · Score: 1

      does this mean the EU will ban the bundling of OS X with Apple computers forcing people to buy it separately?

    2. Re:Now what the EU need to do next... by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

      "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    3. Re:Now what the EU need to do next... by kazade84 · · Score: 1

      That is slightly different, firstly Apple make the hardware as well as the software and bundle it as the complete product. The don't pretty much pay manufacturers to distribute their OS. Secondly, Apple is not a monopoly, Microsoft is.

    4. Re:Now what the EU need to do next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No because Apple does not have a MONOPOLY you MORON HOW MANY TIMES do we have to EXPLAIN THIS the RULES ARE DIFFERENT FOR MONOPOLIES ARRRRGGGGHH!!!!!!!

    5. Re:Now what the EU need to do next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple can do whatever they like as they make both the hardware and software and are selling an "experience", not a computer per se. If users want to pay a premium for that, they are welcome to. I agree with the GP. With the monopoly MS has, it should be illegal for them to play their tactics with OEMs as they are doing now. Unlike Apple, Microsoft does not manufacture or assemble the hardware that their software runs on. They are simply making "alliances" with the hardware vendors, then locking them out and punishing them with higher prices for Windows licenses if they so much as make MS unhappy with their software bundling decisions. I'm sure a lot of OEMs would love the freedom from MS if it meant they wouldn't lose money because of the restrictive agreements they've been locked into if they stray from MS as well as the users who wish to purchase a computer from an OEM but not pay the Microsoft tax.

    6. Re:Now what the EU need to do next... by Shados · · Score: 1

      OSs don't sell if they're not bundled, aside in the enterprise space (which you often DO have to buy separately... most Dell servers for example).

      I do agree though that when someone goes to Dell (or whatever)'s web site, when they pick the OS, it should be like (depending on the package), Windows or Ubuntu as the default, and then +100$ (or -100$ depending on the default) for the other option. Then I feel it would be fair for everyone. It would show that Windows is not free, it would give the user a choice, the user would not have to install the OS himself/herself, and all around, would give a kind of "full disclosure".

    7. Re:Now what the EU need to do next... by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Yes; but only if and when Apple achieve a de facto monopoly in one space.

      For instance, if Apple became the dominant supplier of desktop computers, then it would be quite reasonable to block them from selling software.

      This is why BT weren't allowed to sell cable TV services until their market share in the telecommunications space dropped below a certain point (notwithstanding that at the time, it wasn't technologically feasible for them to deliver television pictures over the telephone cables that existed then. There were still clicky-clicky exchanges, for crying out loud; the last manual telephone exchange in the UK was replaced in 1976. By a clicky-clicky one). Other telecommunications companies weren't so restricted, and so were allowed to offer telephony and television services.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    8. Re:Now what the EU need to do next... by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Yes; but only if and when Apple achieve a de facto monopoly in one space.


      They do. Remember from the trial, Apple was NOT considered competition because Macs aren't PCs. Apple does indeed have a monopoly selling Mac OSes.
    9. Re:Now what the EU need to do next... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      They do. Remember from the trial, Apple was NOT considered competition because Macs aren't PCs.

      That was the US lawsuit not the EU one. The EU lawsuit defined MS's monopoly as a monopoly on "desktop operating systems." Apple is a player in that market, since they sell boxed copies of their OS, but they sell so few as to be negligible. Primarily Apple sells complete computer systems and their OS is one part of the bundle. The compete against Dell, Sony, HP etc. in a market that is not monopolized.

      Apple does indeed have a monopoly selling Mac OSes.

      You concept of a market is fundamentally flawed. You have to define a market according to what consumers consider for their purchase, not the brand name. Right now a consumer can buy a Macintosh or a Thinkpad or an Inspiron, all of which have comparable market share. The reason MS has a monopoly is because when the CEO of Dell looks for an OS to buy to preinstall on systems they ship, Windows is the only option that won't get them fired within the week. He can't buy MacOS because Apple will not license it. He can't license a Linux variant because the vast majority of consumer software is not compatible with it. Hence, he has no realistic choice and has to buy from Microsoft.

    10. Re:Now what the EU need to do next... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      does this mean the EU will ban the bundling of OS X with Apple computers forcing people to buy it separately?

      No. Apple does not have a monopoly on desktop OS's or on complete computer systems. The EU is, however, looking into what Apple bundles with iPods, since Apple is close to having a monopoly on portable music players. The EU may force Apple to not tie either the iTunes software or the iTunes music store service to the iPod... regardless of what MS bundles with their Zune or what Creative bundles with the MuVo.

      The law is being applied the same to everyone. The problem is that most people even on Slashdot don't bother to understand what the law is or why it exists.

  34. Nothing Ever Happens by ajs318 · · Score: 1
    Del Amitri's words from nearly 20 years back still ring true:

    Nothing ever happens
    Nothing happens at all
    The needle returns to the start of the song
    And we all sing along like before
    Microsoft will pay some token portion of the fine and continue to get away with exactly the same misbehaviour for which they were fined in the first place. Nobody even realises they're being eaten alive, until they haven't enough bits left to do anything about it anyway.
    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    1. Re:Nothing Ever Happens by MagicBox · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Who is EU anyway? There's as much truth to the "U" for "united" in that name as there is to nazis liking the jews. Someone has to stop "EU" from this madness. An invasion would be nice!

      --

      The phaomnneil pweor of the hmuan mnid. Fcuknig amzanig eh!
  35. Re:I hope they do not pay by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

    Bring it on, baby.

    By the way, is SEC/FDA/FAA/whoever allowed to fine European companies operating in the US that don't comply with US law? Why yes, they are.

    --
    "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
  36. ($1.337 billion at current exchange rates) by Explodicle · · Score: 1

    1337 j00d1c14ry

  37. That's 984 Billion in American rupees by Leemeng · · Score: 5, Funny

    MS would probably want to pay up quick, before the dollar devalues even further...

    1. Re:That's 984 Billion in American rupees by Nullav · · Score: 1

      So? What does it matter with faith-based currency? From now on, I'm referring to $1,000 as a HyperDollar. The Euro doesn't look so hot anymore, does it?

      --
      I just read Slashdot for the articles.
    2. Re:That's 984 Billion in American rupees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or 267.4 billion in WoW gold. Those bastards better start outsourcing to China..

  38. MS can't win by elrous0 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    The EU isn't "holding large corporations accountable to the law." They have a very personal vendetta against MS, period. MS is an American company that dared thumb its nose at them in the past. Nothing MS can do (short of going out of business) will EVER appease the EU. They're (ironically) taking the same approach with MS that the Bush administration took with Saddam Hussein in the lead up to the 2nd Iraq War: make unreasonable demands and then, if your opponent concedes, make even more unreasonable demands until your opponent finally can't possible comply--using this as a pretext to fight them (which you intended to do all along anyway).

    At this point, it's not a case of the EU acting in the best interests of its citizens. This is extortion of a rich American company, pure and simple.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:MS can't win by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's total nonsense, the EU takes similar sorts of actions against many other large companies all the time. Microsoft are just making things more painful for themselves and dragging things out by not compying with the law.

    2. Re:MS can't win by boteeka · · Score: 1

      make unreasonable demands

      Since when "Unbundle WMP from Windows" is so much unreasonable?

      personal vendetta against MS ? A think the EU requires ALL operating system manufacturers to stop bundling different products into their OS. - Oh, wait ... WHAT other operating system manufacturers are we talking about? There is only Microsoft on the scene. Looks like monopoly to me...
    3. Re:MS can't win by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I expect posts like this on digg where the average age appears to be ten, but your post is infantile. As mentioned here just above your own post are a small sample of the numerous companies that the EU has fined. The only difference is Microsoft disobeyed the EU after being fined. Hence this further fine.
      Frankly, the EU doles out fines to any companies who disobey European laws. Microsoft broke the law they got fined, they ignored the findings/requirements of the remedy they got fined again. There isn't any evil European persecution of an American company going on here. Just a company being fined for breaking the law.

    4. Re:MS can't win by Teun · · Score: 1

      Are you a troll?

      There are many more of these high fines given to European companies that, for example, think they are allowed to form cartels.
      It has been made quite clear what is expected of Microsoft. (as if they don't have their own lawyers to interpret EU law!)
      Microsoft seems hell-bent on breaking those rules, what makes them think they don't have to comply?

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    5. Re:MS can't win by elrous0 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh, wait ... WHAT other operating system manufacturers are we talking about?

      Then were are the fines for Apple (who still bundle all their media stuff in OS X just like MS)? Huh?

      Hello?

      You there?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:MS can't win by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A think the EU requires ALL operating system manufacturers to stop bundling different products into their OS. - Oh, wait ... WHAT other operating system manufacturers are we talking about? There is only Microsoft on the scene. Looks like monopoly to me...

      I know it's fun to bash Microsoft, but consider that the ethical equivalent of what is being expected of Microsoft here would be compelling Linux vendors to ship only the kernel by default, and provide extensible mechanisms for anyone (including closed source, commercial vendors) to supply their own software to be used with such systems on the same basis as any preferences the vendor may have. The only difference is that at present, Microsoft is deemed to have a monopoly in the OS market.

      Frankly, I think some of the cases against Microsoft have gone way too far, to the point that MS are being compelled to ship worse products (from their consumers' perspective) than they otherwise would. The point of these competition laws is to prevent monopoly status in one market distorting another, separate market to the detriment of consumers. But can you name me any other modern desktop OS that doesn't come with a web browser or a media player? These things are now a standard part of products in that market, and that's just too bad for anyone who wants to compete independently. Hitting Microsoft for supplying them is like hitting them for improving security in their OS because it's damaging to anti-virus and firewall vendors, or forcing them to unbundle graphics drivers because the OS core could survive just fine with a text console. It's not at all the same as if they, for example, use their power in the OS market to promote sales of Office or 360s, because the latter are independent markets.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    7. Re:MS can't win by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Is it now "flamebait" to even DARE defend MS on /.? So much for the lauded metamoderation system. Guess that only applies defending Apple and Linux.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    8. Re:MS can't win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then were are the fines for Apple (who still bundle all their media stuff in OS X just like MS)? Huh?

      For the nth time:
      MS = Convicted abusive monopolist ==> bundling restrictions
      Apple not= Convicted monopolist ==> no bundling restrictions

      Simple enough, huh?

    9. Re:MS can't win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Each linux vendor ships different 'components' in their distro. For example some distros favor Gnome, others KDE, others xfce. Others bundle mplayer, others xine, others both etc. Alot o choice for the end user.
       
      You would have been right if there were to be a linux vendor that ultimately monopolized desktop market and used it's position to extend that monopoly on, say, a closed video encoding standard, as microsoft does with media player. That, I think, would be something most slashdotters would oppose to though, even if it were a linux vendor doing it.
       
      Dont forget the problem with windows bundling media player isnt the player itself but the support for their closed formats by default and the net effect that has. Same with the browser. The browser itself, however crappy, is not the problem. The ie engine is the heart of the problem...

    10. Re:MS can't win by castrox · · Score: 1

      Dude.. Microsoft is a monolopy. Look it up. Being a monolopy enables the state to apply stricter rules to you. What about this is hard to understand?

      If a monolopist enters a new market there's a great risc that by being a monolopist they will drive competition out of the market.

      Simple.

      Now.. is Apple a monolopy?

      --
      Fight for your digital freedom, join the EFF *now*: http://www.eff.org/support/
    11. Re:MS can't win by castrox · · Score: 1

      No. Defending MS is admirable. But your argument and logic is flawed considering that you completely disregard that Microsoft is a monolopy and a different ruleset applies to them.

      Re-think your position WITHOUT disregarding the monolopy situation.

      --
      Fight for your digital freedom, join the EFF *now*: http://www.eff.org/support/
    12. Re:MS can't win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Defend MS == troll Attack Apple/Linux (even when rightly so) == troll

      The EU has a history of going after companies whose products compete with their own. more so when those products are better. Look at wine (the stuff made from grapes not the software). The EU imposed heavy taxes and name restrictions on imported wine. Even their own wine judges found the foreign wine to be better but the EU went right on taxing away. The EU hated the fact the foreign companies made better wine they they did.

      If the EU was being fair to all companies. It would require Apple and everyone else to unbundle their products so other companies (read EU companies) could compete. But the EU is not. The EU doesn't want a foreign company to get ahead only an EU company.

    13. Re:MS can't win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude... for the nth time, antitrust laws as applied to software are complete bullshit.

    14. Re:MS can't win by Calinous · · Score: 1

      I use Mozilla Firefox as the DEFAULT web browser. Yet, there are some programs that launch web pages in Internet Explorer.
            If this isn't unfair competition, I don't know what it is.

    15. Re:MS can't win by CajunArson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you are saying that when third party programmers hardwire their apps to use an alternative web browser that you don't like that this is somehow Microsoft's fault? It is pretty obvious you have no idea what the term "unfair competition" means.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    16. Re:MS can't win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there is a problem with communism, how? I can point out millions of problems with capitalism, all of which involves death. Look at working conditions when it was pure capitalism. Although there are problems today, there are less of them thanks to the progressive movement. Once we go totally towards communism, there will be no problems at all. We would also be a lot further along if M$ and all businesses were gone. and everything were indeed run by the government.

    17. Re:MS can't win by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      What crap, I should be able to uninstall Internet explorer (as in GONE) on windows and all Microsoft's products should be able to load links up in whatever browser is my default.

      Why is that unreasonable?! Why do they force me to use Internet Explorer?

      You whole ethical equivalent argument is crap. Please stop with these stupid Linux equivalents, you can uninstall Firefox or whatever on Linux and use Opera as default with no problems. Don't try and twist the argument!

    18. Re:MS can't win by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      The EU isn't "holding large corporations accountable to the law." They have a very personal vendetta against MS, period.

      At this point, it's not a case of the EU acting in the best interests of its citizens. This is extortion of a rich American company, pure and simple.
      Your comments speak for themselves. This has nothing to do with what country Microsoft is from and a lot to do with them not complying with the EU's demands every step of the way, meanwhile making a big PR thing out of it claiming "unfair" on an American company.
    19. Re:MS can't win by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Translation - Since our communist manifesto based operating system linsux can't compete against Windows, the European Communist Union should fine Microsoft until Microsoft goes out of business, then go for all other businesses until capitalism collapses and communism reigns supreme.
      Oh wait, that's what you fucktarded shitdot sheeple want. The only thing you fucktarded shitdot sheeple deserve is fucking razors so you can all slit your fucking wrists.
      lol, Americans... Get a hint, it's just a software company no one here gives a shit that it is based in the US.
    20. Re:MS can't win by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      Your argument is stupid. IE is used as a "standard" browser and as a componentized browser all through the OS because it is a known constant. Any application that needs to render a page in a browser inside a shell window the application owns knows it can use IE, knows the exact API to do so, and knows what it will look like. This is why IE is there and can't be uninstalled.

      If you don't like IE, don't use it. Why do you think you should be able to install it, from some facile academic CS definition of an "OS"? I can't remove NTFS. I can't remove the OSX filesystem. I can't remove the font rendering engine. Oh no! Call the EU!

      You can run firefox or opera on Windows to your heart's content. If an application pops up a full blown IE window when you click on a link, that application is broken if you have configured firefox to be your default browser.

    21. Re:MS can't win by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's obvious he's retarded is what it is. If an application launches a new instance of IE when Firefox is configured as the browser, that application is broken. If an application launches an embedded IE instance to render HTML, it's because that's the way it's done. The API is well know, you always know IE is installed and how to embed it and what it will look like. That's why you can't remove IE from the OS.

    22. Re:MS can't win by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Since when "Unbundle WMP from Windows" is so much unreasonable? Because Microsoft develops the product and should be able to include whatever they think adds value to the customer. The customers want it. Nobody will buy the "cripped" windows. That's why it's unreasonable.

      ? A think the EU requires ALL operating system manufacturers to stop bundling different products into their OS. - Oh, wait ... WHAT other operating system manufacturers are we talking about? There is only Microsoft on the scene. Looks like monopoly to me... Hmm... What other operating systems? Let's see, Apple, a few dozen major variants of Linux, a few hundred minor variants, OpenSolaris, QNX, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Plan9, Hurd, the list truly goes on and on and on.

      Now, I know you'll whine that those aren't "mainstream", then you'll go on to cry that if you want to run Windows Application XYZ poor Joe Schmoe needs Windows. The fact is that if you try hard enough to artificially narrow a market you can define any company as a "monopoly". Seriously, do you know how ridiculous this sounds?

      "Microsoft has a monopoly on x86 operating systems which are called Windows Vista and Windows XP and Windows Server and which can run binaries which utilize the Microsoft APIs and which also have no equivelents on other operating systems". Slightly...narrow definition, I'd say. What a fucking joke, people who claim MS has a monopoly are disingenuous or retarded.

    23. Re:MS can't win by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Ahahaha. How dare you contradict SlashDweeb Group"Think". Instead of allowing a different opinion be heard, they use the moderation system to make sure nobody contradicts their idiotic view of the EU as the knight in white armor riding to the rescue of the billions, nay TRILLIONS, of people who are dying every day because of the Evil Microsoft "Monopoly".

    24. Re:MS can't win by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      What crap, I should be able to uninstall Internet explorer (as in GONE) on windows and all Microsoft's products should be able to load links up in whatever browser is my default.

      Why? What if you choose to use another browser that doesn't work the same way as IE? What if it doesn't even provide the functionality required by the application spawning it? Do you think that Microsoft should only be able to provide functionality in their product that is universally present in any replacement that you might choose to use and over which they have no control whatsoever? Do you think they should be required to test the functionality of all their applications with every possible browser you might drop in to replace IE, including those that don't even exist yet, to make sure they don't cause security flaws, crashes or similar?

      Why is that unreasonable?! Why do they force me to use Internet Explorer?

      Why is your demand reasonable? No-one is forcing you to use their software at all, if you don't like the way it behaves.

      And my ethical equivalent is many things, but crap is not one of them. What you are, in this very post, demanding of Microsoft is exactly analogous to me demanding that every Linux distro should provide a mechanism for me to remove whatever the default browser is and expect some replacement that functions like IE to drop in and work instead. It's just that in that case, you don't seem to mind because it doesn't personally affect you, while in the Windows case you seem to object because it does. This is known in dictionaries as "hypocrisy".

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    25. Re:MS can't win by LingNoi · · Score: 0, Troll

      IE is used as a "standard" browser and as a componentized browser all through the OS because it is a known constant.
      No, IE is used as a web browser to push Microsoft's monopoly on the internet and desktop.

      Check mail in MSN? IE pops up.. Get a domain name wrong? MSN search activated, ad revenue generated.

      Any application that needs to render a page in a browser inside a shell window the application owns knows it can use IE, knows the exact API to do so, and knows what it will look like.
      Thanks, you just proved my point as for why it should be ripped out. It has created an unfair advantage over competing products.
    26. Re:MS can't win by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      What monopoly? I'm confused, why can't I go install Linux or use Firefox or Opera on Windows. Oh, wait. I can. You seem to have a misunderstanding of what "unfair" means. Consumers are the goal. Depriving them of functionality just so John Widget Vendor can sell his crappy alternative doesn't help anyone. Then again, the EU is largely a socialist's utopia so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

      The unescapable fact you people willfully ignore is that there is no monopoly in the desktop OS market. This is provably so. Now, you can narrowly enough define something so that Microsoft has what you can make-believe define as a "monopoly", but that doesn't make it rational.

    27. Re:MS can't win by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      What monopoly? I'm confused, why can't I go install Linux or use Firefox or Opera on Windows. Oh, wait. I can.

      The EU ruled MS has a monopoly on "desktop operating systems." That is to say the primary purchasers of desktop OS's (being OEMs like Dell or Sony) have no realistic choice but to purchase Windows to include in the computer systems they sell. Put it this way. If you were hired to be CEO of Dell, what OS would you tell your employees to purchase to include on the computers you sell? Remember if that choice would result in being fired before the end of the week it is not a viable option. Also note, Apple refuses to license OS X, so it is not an option.

      Yeah, that's what I thought.

      You seem to have a misunderstanding of what "unfair" means. Consumers are the goal. Depriving them of functionality just so John Widget Vendor can sell his crappy alternative doesn't help anyone.

      Banning MS from bundling IE or WMP or tying their desktop OS to their server OS doesn't deprive consumers of anything. It just means OEMs like Dell have to decide what they want to ship on their systems instead of MS deciding.

      Then again, the EU is largely a socialist's utopia so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

      Ha! What a joke. The US and EU both have a large number of socialist programs and many EU members have less socialism than the US. The difference is the US's biggest socialist enterprise is the military, while other countries spend more on healthcare and helping the poor. The most amusing thing about your post is the EU has taken an action to keep the server OS and media player software markets as capitalist free markets, instead of allowing them to be undermined by antitrust abuse that rewards inferior products with market share instead of allowing the best product to win based upon its merits to consumers.

      The unescapable fact you people willfully ignore is that there is no monopoly in the desktop OS market.

      The inescapable fact is you don't understand how a market is defined. The US courts, EU courts, and dozens of other courts around the world have all ruled otherwise... but I suppose you are a genius and have a PhD in economics and know better than all the experts huh?

      This is provably so. Now, you can narrowly enough define something so that Microsoft has what you can make-believe define as a "monopoly", but that doesn't make it rational.

      Please stop embarrassing yourself and go buy a book on the basics of economics. Just reading a 10 page summary of antitrust law is enough education to demonstrate how flawed your understanding is. Isn't Econ 101 a requirement for a bachelor's degree anymore? So much for the US educational system... I suppose you'll blame your ignorance on that on the fact that it is a socialist program huh?

    28. Re:MS can't win by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      What you are, in this very post, demanding of Microsoft is exactly analogous to me demanding that every Linux distro should provide a mechanism for me to remove whatever the default browser is and expect some replacement that functions like IE to drop in and work instead
      They already do so what's your point? Microsoft is the one in trouble because they don't, please keep up.

      And my ethical equivalent is many things, but crap is not one of them.
      Your arugment was about the linux kernal NOT the web browser, you seem to be confused into thinking it was about web browsers..

      I know it's fun to bash Microsoft, but consider that the ethical equivalent of what is being expected of Microsoft here would be compelling Linux vendors to ship only the kernel by default,
      It's a crap equivalent because they're not the same at all. We're talking about AN APPLICATION, not the operating system!

      Why? What if you choose to use another browser that doesn't work the same way as IE? What if it doesn't even provide the functionality required by the application spawning it?
      What functionality?! Most browsers render HTML, what's your point if you can't even come up with an real example? There is nothing in IE that can't be done in EVERY browser in a cross platform way. In fact most web developers would agree with me that you have to spend even MORE time getting things to be cross platform in IE.
    29. Re:MS can't win by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Most browsers render HTML, what's your point if you can't even come up with an real example?

      There are several major discrepancies between IE and other browsers: ActiveX support, centralised management facilities for corporate IT... Did you think we were just talking about how the width of a block is worked out on old web pages?

      How do you think you can support the things I mentioned above in "EVERY browser in a cross platform way"?

      In fact most web developers would agree with me that you have to spend even MORE time getting things to be cross platform in IE.

      Right. So by your argument, since IE is the established standard and has most of the market share, why are competing browsers that come with Linux distros not all required to provide a compatibility mode that renders pages as IE does, supports ActiveX, etc?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    30. Re:MS can't win by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      For the nth time:
      MS = hated by EU ==> bundling restrictions
      Apple not= not hated by EU ==> no bundling restrictions

      Slashdoters who excuse Apple for doing the exact same evil shit as MS ==> hypocrites

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    31. Re:MS can't win by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu installs Firefox as the default web browser. But I want to use Opera. I demand that Canonical be fined!!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    32. Re:MS can't win by makomk · · Score: 1

      Actually, Microsoft has been one of the main offenders when it comes to writing apps that open all web pages in Internet Explorer, no matter what your preferred browser is (MSN Messenger and some versions of Office do it, for a start).

    33. Re:MS can't win by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's monopoly on the internet and desktop.

      Funny, on *my* desktop I use Firefox. Does Windows stop *you* from installing it?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    34. Re:MS can't win by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, did they fine Apple for doing the EXACT SAME THING that MS is doing (bundling their own apps with their OS)? I must have missed that news story, because I thought that they singled out MS.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    35. Re:MS can't win by LingNoi · · Score: 1
      Can you only read one line at a time?

      Check mail in MSN? IE pops up.. Get a domain name wrong? MSN search activated, ad revenue generated.
      You must be a compiler.. : )
    36. Re:MS can't win by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      Oh jesus, not you again. Your rehashed "but everyone _wants_ MS OS's, so they have to sell them, so, umm, MS has a monopoly!" hand-waving chewbacca defense-esque argument is just stupid, I choose to ignore it.

      Please stop embarrassing yourself and go buy a book on the basics of economics. Just reading a 10 page summary of antitrust law is enough education to demonstrate how flawed your understanding is. Isn't Econ 101 a requirement for a bachelor's degree anymore? So much for the US educational system... I suppose you'll blame your ignorance on that on the fact that it is a socialist program huh? You've already proven you're a retard of some sort. Please explain how you can rationally define a demand-created monopoly? Also, how exactly can you have a monopoly with no pricing power over alteratives (read: Linux is free). You seem to think you can argue, with a straight face, that one can have a monopoly when there is no supply-side limitation to the supposedly monopolized commodity. I would argue that that's fucking stupid.

      I'm all for stopping cartels or monopolies over important commodities which are limited in supply in a single-supplier arrangement. Hurrah. Go after OPEC. Whoohoo. Oil. Power. Water. Food. If you are the only supplier of one of these, then you have a monopoly. Having a "monopoly" when the consumer has literally hundreds of alternatives is a ridiculous concept.

    37. Re:MS can't win by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Oh jesus, not you again. Your rehashed "but everyone _wants_ MS OS's, so they have to sell them, so, umm, MS has a monopoly!" hand-waving chewbacca defense-esque argument is just stupid, I choose to ignore it.

      If that is what you distilled from my post, well I guess those are your limitations. I'm sure not going to waste a lot of time trying to help your reading comprehension.

      You've already proven you're a retard of some sort.

      *Poof* there goes your credibility, as you fall back on flamebait. Good luck with that.

    38. Re:MS can't win by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      It's funny how that argument never occurred to Microsoft's army of lawyers during their many anti-trust trials.

      If only they could have put it forward, they'd have short-circuited the whole process.

      Sadly they're just not that smart. Microsoft really need to look into their hiring practices.

    39. Re:MS can't win by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      If you think Apple is doing 'THE EXACT SAME THING' then you're an idiot and would be best advised to go and read up on what this fine is for and how both parties came to be in the position they are in now.

    40. Re:MS can't win by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 1

      "And there is a problem with communism, how?"

      How stupid are you?

      "I can point out millions of problems with capitalism, all of which involves death."

      Lets see, the 'capitalist' parts of the world have a better record than the despots whom use communism.

      "Look at working conditions when it was pure capitalism."

      As opposed to under communists? Did you ever examine conditions under communists? No, guess not. Take a trip to North Korea.

      "Although there are problems today, there are less of them thanks to the progressive movement."

      'The progressive movement'. What a crock of shit.

      "Once we go totally towards communism, there will be no problems at all. We would also be a lot further along if M$ and all businesses were gone. and everything were indeed run by the government."

      We are fortunate that we have history. And real cases where liars like you can be forced to face. Which communist model do you like? The North Korean? Stalin's? A Kymer Rouge model? Chinese, with its portable death Vans? Perhaps you like Robert Mugabe's redistribution of land to his people, tried over and over by asshole idiots spastic communist fucktards, now leaving his people starving just like all the other communists who have taken this path.

      Let me guess, you agree with a model that works towards 1 in 5 humans getting AK47's - and exporting your form of human poverty across the Globe. Communism continues today to be a primary driver of death amongst humans on a scale never seen in History.

      --
      We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
  39. Europe and California lead the way? by zerofoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems that America is losing its ethical way. For the most part, our government's "hands off" approach to regulating businesses and enforcing the law with respect to corporations is coming at a huge cost to the average American citizen.

    Europe and the "nation-state" of California may be our only hope of leveling the playing field with regard to how corporations do business.

    We, as a nation, need to demand that our elected leaders start regulating these companies for the good of the country and the planet. It should not be wrong to force telecom companies to open their networks to competition, or to require stricter air quality and fuel economy from the energy and transportation sectors of our economy. How about regulating banks and credit institutions with regard to credit risk? Then punishing banks that make stupid decisions - and then sell those stupid decisions to other investors.

    To those that say that more Government will only screw things up: Look around you. Corporations left to their own devices have screwed things up royally in the last 8 years.

    Football games have referees for a reason - the same reason that businesses need government regulation. You can not have a level playing field without government regulation.

    -ted

    1. Re:Europe and California lead the way? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

      "Corporations left to their own devices have screwed things up royally in the last 8 years."

      Who was responsible for communism, fascism and the death camps of the 20th century?

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    2. Re:Europe and California lead the way? by mike2R · · Score: 1

      "Who was responsible for communism, fascism and the death camps of the 20th century?"

      Who organised the fight against communism, fascism and the death camps of the 20th century?

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    3. Re:Europe and California lead the way? by bad_seed10 · · Score: 1

      Who was responsible for communism, fascism and the death camps of the 20th century? IBM
    4. Re:Europe and California lead the way? by homer_s · · Score: 1

      Agreed. We also need the government to regulate the internet. Look at how the unregulated private companies has screwed up the internet - spam, service outages, porn being sent to kids' emails, etc. We have a *right* to a better internet.

      Clearly, we need the government to regulate the internet.

    5. Re:Europe and California lead the way? by laddiebuck · · Score: 0

      Britain.

  40. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ha ha ha ha !
    Good luck to them callecting the money from crosoft !
    The case is not so one sided as it appears; apple Itunes anyone ?
    No lost love between me and Microsoft, but the EU is a bit wrong.
    Like someone noted, they complied, but priced the lesser software
    the same; so who would want it ?
    They'll eventually have to do some sweet heart negotiations with
    Microsoft... Why should Microsoft make life easy for their competition ?
    Does Toyota makes it easier to use GM parts in their cars ?
    Does HP makes it easier to use canon injets cartidges ?
    If crosoft is so bad, go with linux, osx, solaris, os2 ...
    Any attempt by them to shut down crosoft operations in the EU will
    see the business owners and leaders screaming murder at the eu government.
    Beside, Microsoft could easily escape by simply licensing the eu
    manufacturing& distribution to an independent entity that has no direct link.
    With so called capitalism and democracy; you can forced someone to follow the
    spirit of the law. They should have been more careful in framing their demands,
    especially when dealing with the devil ;-).
    Beside microsoft is not forcing anyone to use media player.
    If the competition wasn't so complacent, then microsoft wouldn't be so powerful.
    Anyone remembers when Norton defrag used to cost 100 dollars and mediocre logitech
    mouses used to cost and arm and a leg ? Well, I don't want to go back to those
    old days. In one case, Microsoft came in and offered defrag for free and made
    a killing selling "the microsoft mouse" I remember buying them for 85 retail and
    35 OEM. I can list dozens of examples like Next Computers, Apple ... where the originators where greedily sitting on the gold mine, just to start
    complaining of unfair competition when a slightly inferior product from Microsoft
    swept the market.

  41. Re:You're right by CmdrGravy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're an idiot, how is Microsoft going to justify that sort of action to it's shareholders ?

    "Well we were fined for breaking the law and rather than stop breaking the law and paying the fine we decided to get revenge by flushing trillions of dollars worth of sales down the toilet and antagonise nearly all of what would have been a huge and profitable market for us."

  42. Re:You're right by Mathinker · · Score: 1

    And your local electric company should do that to you, also. Teach you a lesson, eh?

    You do know what the meaning of the word "monopoly" is right (no, I don't mean that game you played as a kid)?

    The EU would be perfectly justified to authorize the use of hacked MS products, and the reverse engineering and publishing of all of the MS proprietary protocols and formats (perhaps also seizing related documents from European MS branches). Hey, if they do it quickly enough, maybe they can change OOXML into a fully specified standard before its vote!

  43. Nuthin' from nuthin' by Bullfish · · Score: 1

    Lemme see, they fine MS more because MS didn't change enough and still hasn't paid previous fines... and these new fines will have the payments from MS rolling in... when?...

    And while the fine may be heaps more money than the GNP of say, Chad, it would only send Bill Gates scrambling for his change purse...

    The EU may be sending a message to MS to smarten up, but I think MS is sending a message that the EU needs them more than they need the EU... or at least that they don't care...

    1. Re:Nuthin' from nuthin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " ...but I think MS is sending a message that the EU needs them more than they need the EU... or at least that they don't care..."

      From where are you getting this? Would you quote a source? MS seems conciliatory at this point (they did go to court over the old fine of Euro 497M, and lost, and said they won't appeal, because it looked like there is no legal basis for an appeal).

    2. Re:Nuthin' from nuthin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why appeal? They didn't pay the last fine. Do you think they will pay this fine? They can say all the conciliatory tings they want, but not do the conciliatory deed. It's called a pattern.

  44. Governments are the sole human organization... by Hasai · · Score: 1
    ....who can legally kill.

    "I would be very interested to see what would happen if a tech giant decided to play hardball with a government." Simple: EU would swear-out an arrest warrant and start extradition procedures on the idiots who thought they could play "hardball" with sovereign states.

    A pity the Germans tore down Spandau Prison; that would have been just the place.

    --

    Regards;

    Hasai

  45. 7.6% by hkmarks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft's net income was around $14 billion in 2007. Over fifteen months, this charge is only 7.6% of that. It's only around 2% of their gross revenue. It's basically just a little extra tax, from MS's perspective. No mistake, it's still a lot of money, but I wouldn't be surprised if they paid it happily and kept their little monopoly.

    1. Re:7.6% by apathy+maybe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They don't get to keep their monopoly. They get to pay the fine and change their behaviour or get fined again.

      That's how it works in the EU, you don't get to continue doing what you were fined for after you pay your fine! (Otherwise people would be speeding all the time, and when stopped would say, "I already paid my fine", and would get let off!)

      I think it works that way in the USA too, but don't quote me on that.

      --
      I wank in the shower.
    2. Re:7.6% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it's not "pay it, and we'll turn a blind eye". It's "pay it, and you are still required to comply"

    3. Re:7.6% by anticypher · · Score: 1

      They have also accounted for US$900 million of this fine in advance, and gave those numbers at the last quarterly analysts conference as a future debt. So their stock price has already adjusted downward for this event, the only difference is the continued slide of the dollar vs. the euro.

      Can somebody else can google up a link to the last earnings meeting? Micro$oft getting ready to pay this fine is somewhere mentioned in that meeting, they expect to be able to pay it over at least 4 quarters, and were hoping to spread the payments over an even longer period of time. They didn't make any remarks about trying one more legal defence or appeal, so I doubt they'll even bother.

      Cost of doing business

      the AC

      --
      Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
    4. Re:7.6% by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      I believe fines cannot be written off as tax deductible expenses, so its not right to compare the fine with revenues. Instead you should be looking at profit.

      Last quarter, MS made $2.62 in the last quarter, so this fine is roughly 1/8th MS's total profit for the year.

      Its worrying in that this fine is happening at a time when MS revenues are falling, what with Vista being such a good seller and lots of resources being spent on new products. If they were happy to pay it, they would have paid the original fine and not been charged with this one.

    5. Re:7.6% by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Which is why the fine should be 10 to 20 times as much. It shouldn't be a cost of doing business, but rather an onerous, difficult and damaging event that so scares the fuck out of the investors that they order Microsoft to play nice.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:7.6% by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

      You're missing the GP's point... MS can continue behaving illegally as long as they keep paying the fines. Since the fines are ~2%/year, that's what they will pay to continue behaving illegally. You said that if they don't change their behaviour they'll get fined again, and apparently they can afford that with no problems.

    7. Re:7.6% by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      I think it works that way in the USA too, but don't quote me on that.
      Nah, in the US you just appeal the court decision until a new administration is elected that is pro-Business and wink-wink, nudge-nudge you get let off with nothing but a slap on the wrist.
      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    8. Re:7.6% by initialE · · Score: 1

      Continued noncompliance would only lead to a higher fine. If they made 14 billion last year, minus the 1 billion, then how would they survive next year if the fine was raised by 10x?

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    9. Re:7.6% by weicco · · Score: 1

      They don't get to keep their monopoly. They get to pay the fine and change their behaviour or get fined again. That's how it works in the EU, you don't get to continue doing what you were fined for after you pay your fine!

      Well, actually that is not how it works in the EU. Monopolies aren't prohibited in EU. If there's no competition then there is no competition. Monopoly doesn't have to stop operating or create competitor for itself if there's no such. And in fact EU has been supporting competitors of MS. Just look all that money poured to Mandrake/Mandriva.

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
  46. Business-Friendly EU by BECoole · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This really makes the EU look like a good place to do business. Not.

    1. Re:Business-Friendly EU by downix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It does to me. A competitive market means that I, as a small business owner, can infact start a new enterprise with less concern that some monolithic relic of 30 years ago long past it's development prime can use it's monopoly to squish my innovations.

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    2. Re:Business-Friendly EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Except that you can't - the same EU Commission is pushing for US-style software patents in europe. Strip away the rhetoric, and look at how the money flows - microsoft pays EU Commission 1 Billion, EU Commission works hard to introduce US-style software patents, which are only good for Microsoft and IBM and catastrophic for EU small business owners (like myself).

    3. Re:Business-Friendly EU by compro01 · · Score: 1

      yes, it does. kicking a monopoly-holder down a peg or few is usually very good for anyone looking to enter the market.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  47. Re:1.3 billion ~= nothing, not to stock holders by stonewolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not really... Not to stock holders.

    MS's stock price is down and going lower. MS's cash equivalents on hand have drop from a high of over $50 billion to near $20 billion. MS is plowing billions of dollars a year into product areas such as the X box and their online business that are losing billions of dollars every year. Having to pay a fine of $1.3 billion costs them about 7% of their cash on hand. That is $1.3 dollars that they can't spend on developing new markets, it is #1.3 billion they can't ever hope to use to create stock holder value. This is a big enough fine to cause MS's board of directors and MS's executives to be sued by the stock holders and removed from their offices.

    This kind of a fine, especially if it is followed up by stock holder suits can lead to a drop in the stock price that will cost Gates and crew billions of dollars off of their personal net value, force to company to pay the stock holders an equivalent amount of money, and force major changes in the board of directors.

    This fine is a big deal.

    Microsoft may well be heading into a perfect storm of legal shit.

    And, do not forget that the only reason they got a slap on the wrist in the US is because MS spent lots of money on the Bushies and their corporate dogs. The Bushies and the whole neocon (neofascist) crew are not going to be in office in January 2009. The political storm sweeping the US right now is like nothing I have ever seen before. And I lived through most of the 1950s and 1960s.

    MS is in trouble.

    Oh... for those with no perspective, this is a story that is going to play out over the next 10 years, not the next 10 months.

    Stonewolf

  48. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by CnlPepper · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whatever Bill.

  49. Neelie Kroes by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Interesting
    European Competition Commissioner

    Because the European Union is a progressive liberal democracy, she is allowed to have more balls than her US opposite number.

    Microsoft needs to get a move on. The fine is in Euros, and if the Euro continues to appreciate against the dollar when they eventually pay it may bankrupt them. (this is a joke. It is a feeble joke but a joke nonetheless.)

    Incidentally, and this is quite true, one of the lawyers for Microsoft summarised their case like this: "We are Microsoft. We are the good guys. So what we want to do is right." Now compare that with HP, who have people based in Europe who talk to the Commission and say, in effect "We would like to do so-and-so. Is that all right?". Strangely, you don't hear about massive fines for HP over their dominance of the office printer market.

    It has been clear to me for a number of years that Microsoft simply needs to grow up as a company, like small children who, if their parents do a half decent job, learn to get what they want by politeness and cooperation, not by kicking, screaming and stealing toys. But, in order to change, they have to recognise the need for change. I suspect that their technical people are well aware of this, but some of the management is still in "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mode. The MS XML saga is pretty conclusive evidence of this. I bet there are project managers in ISO who by now will do their best to sabotage any Microsoft standards project, simply because they have been so pissed off by them.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Neelie Kroes by downix · · Score: 1

      Don't hear about HP creating new paper that goes only in HP printers, that is dumped on the market in order to destroy competing paper products...

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    2. Re:Neelie Kroes by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Don't hear about HP creating new paper that goes only in HP printers, that is dumped on the market in order to destroy competing paper products...

      You don't hear about proprietary paper eh? Gee what else goes into printers that would be problematic. Maybe ink?

    3. Re:Neelie Kroes by plusser · · Score: 2, Funny

      We the people of the EU are waiting for the resurrection of our champion, leader and poodle of George W. Bush, namely Prime Minister Tony Blair as President Blair of the European Union, our true lord and master, whom will sort out this mess and give and order of merit of business practices to Mr William Gates. The following week Great Britain leaves the EU.

    4. Re:Neelie Kroes by zmower · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, and this is quite true, one of the lawyers for Microsoft summarised their case like this: "We are Microsoft. We are the good guys. So what we want to do is right."
      Hey, it works for their government. ;)
      --

      Sig pending!
    5. Re:Neelie Kroes by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 0

      "European Competition Commissioner [europa.eu]

      Because the European Union is a progressive liberal democracy, she is allowed to have more balls than her US opposite number."

      Hahaha, yes, The US being a democracy would not get away with a commission being appointed and running the whole country, without any form of democracy. But maybe Bush should do that, he could then levy billion dollar fines against companies from Europe and the far east, and if you bring in EU book keeping, you can syphon off the money to pay for a nice new gravy train.

      You'd have gotten away with your comment if you'd tried a progressive liberal dictatorship.

      --
      We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
  50. It would also be interesting... by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 1

    ...to see what shareholders would think about Microsoft pulling out of, oh I dunno, the world's largest trading block for the sake of a poultry fine in comparison?

    Read: it ain't gonna happen.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
    1. Re:It would also be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...to see what shareholders would think about Microsoft pulling out of, oh I dunno, the world's largest trading block for the sake of a poultry fine in comparison?

      Oh, I think a poultry fine is very appropriate for fowl play.

    2. Re:It would also be interesting... by Panaqqa · · Score: 1

      Of course it's not going to happen. It's just an interesting thought exercise really: what could they get away with.

      Personally, I don't think Microsoft will need to pull out of Europe, they will be frozen out almost completely within a few years anyway for several reasons, only one of which is their monopolistic business practices.

    3. Re:It would also be interesting... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      A "poultry" fine?

      A couple of eggs, some drumsticks...

      (sorry, couldn't resist)

  51. Compensation for lost hours by DrFruit · · Score: 1
    I have to use Windows. Apart from the countless days I have spent restoring and re-installing applications and partitions and finding remedies for bugs and design flaws, I have lost hundreds of hours moving data from NTFS to FAT32 or EXT3 and vice versa, because I can't attach my NTFS formatted external drives to my NAT devices, as M$ refuses to share the details.

    I see this fine as compensation for all those lost hours. Where can I claim my part?

    1. Re:Compensation for lost hours by comm2k · · Score: 1

      Not to be troll but have you never heard of such a thing called ntfs-3g? What OS is your NAT running?

    2. Re:Compensation for lost hours by DrFruit · · Score: 1

      Oops. That was a typo, I meant to say NAS devices. I have several and not one of them can write to NTFS drives, only read from them.

    3. Re:Compensation for lost hours by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``I have to use Windows''

      No, you don't. You just don't.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    4. Re:Compensation for lost hours by DrFruit · · Score: 1
      Wow, life is simpler without Windows. You can even decide about people you don't know anything about.

      Hint: some people have to help others who use Windows. That is hard to do without using Windows.

    5. Re:Compensation for lost hours by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 1

      "I have to use Windows. Apart from the countless days I have spent restoring and re-installing applications and partitions and finding remedies for bugs and design flaws"

      Do you complain about that with Linux? No... didn't think so..

      ", I have lost hundreds of hours moving data from NTFS to FAT32 or EXT3 and vice versa, because I can't attach my NTFS formatted external drives to my NAT devices, as M$ refuses to share the details."

      Microsoft don't have to share the details. Even in the wacky world of Microsoft bashing EU commissioners, they did not cite Microsoft for attempted monopoly of file systems.

      "I see this fine as compensation for all those lost hours. Where can I claim my part?"

      Why should you be compensated for being a really dumb person?

      --
      We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
    6. Re:Compensation for lost hours by DrFruit · · Score: 1
      "Do you complain about Linux?"

      Why would I complain about Linux in a topic about Microsoft being fined?

      "Microsoft don't have to share the details."

      And you seem okay with that. Are you defending Microsoft? I think their position is that they don't have to share anything. Luckily, our commisioner has a different opinion.

      "Why would you be compensated for being a really dumb person?"

      That is - apart from a rather crude attempt at criticism - an interesting point. Apparently, having to do something even if there are things about it you don't like is a measure of a person's intelligence. This opens up vast categories of people for you to dislike and feel superior to. Taxpayers, kids who do chores, all very stupid. You seem like a nice person.

  52. Microsoft's response by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 2, Funny

    Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has reportedly responded to the fine announced by the EU by issuing a request for candidates and establishing a vote-soliciation group to replace all elected officials in the European Union with pro-Microsoft officials.

    If successful, it's believed that Ballmer's plan is to rename the European Union to "Microsoft EU Professional".

    In a separate communication, Ballmer told EU officials that Microsoft would send them free MSDN DVDs if they withdraw the fine. "If you choose not to accept our offer," wrote Ballmer, "we reserve the right to pursue all necessary steps to ensure that software customers in Europe are provided with the opportunity to realize the value inherent in our monopoly."

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
    1. Re:Microsoft's response by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      I have nothing particularly insightful to add, but I just want to share this truly revolting picture of Steve:

      http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/02/27/eu_fines_microsoft_682_million_in_antitrust_case/1

    2. Re:Microsoft's response by plusser · · Score: 1

      Didn't know Steve was a member of UKIP!

    3. Re:Microsoft's response by FearForWings · · Score: 1

      Looks like he got sucked out before seeding the atomosphere of Mars. Start the reactor Quaid!

      --
      I don't know about angles, but it's fear that gives men wings. -Max Payne
  53. The amazing thing is by LinuxDon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Quote: "The amazing thing is that the EU now expects Microsoft to comply and 'close a dark chapter' in their history."

    How can this be considered *amazing*?

    It's the only option they have. They've played their cards and lost, now is the time to just pay the fine, comply with the ruling and move on.

    1. Re:The amazing thing is by Xuranova · · Score: 1


      while (costoflegalstaff 1,337,000,000) {
            stall();
            cost of legalstaff =costoflegalstaff+ yearlylegalcost;
      }

      --
      "There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
    2. Re:The amazing thing is by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

      Damn, I hate it when the left chevron (AKA "less than") doesn't appear on comments
      Didn't hit the preview button, eh ?

      Besides, we prefer underscore as a word seperator

      while (cost_of_legal_staff < 1,337,000,000) {
      stall();
      cost_of_legal_staff += yearly_legal_cost;
      }

    3. Re:The amazing thing is by LinuxDon · · Score: 1

      They can't stall this, they already have to pay the fine.
      Also, in TFA you'll see that the fines keep increasing.

      The EU has already launched new investigations and will keep doing so.
      Non-compliance will result in increasingly higher fines.

  54. Abusive modding by Dilaudid · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why was above comment modded flamebait? Here's a graph of the value of the dollar in euros. Looks like it's dropping to me. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=USDEUR=X&t=5y.

    1. Re:Abusive modding by neumayr · · Score: 0

      Because saying "lowest ever value against the euro" implies to mean more than it really does, given that the Euro is a relatively new currency.

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    2. Re:Abusive modding by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Funny

      Looks like it's dropping to me.

      It's just the warping of space time making it appear to drop in a Newtonian absolute frame of reference.

  55. Re:I hope they do not pay by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    Some of us have been trying to get rid of the influence of Brussels on our country for years, but with a regrettable lack of success so far. :-(

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  56. the concept of rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NO NO NO NO NO! You write 'A "right" is something that a government has decided you may do.' Rights are inherent to the people, who grant limited powers to the government in order to protect their rights. The government does not give you rights, you have them by virtue of your existence.

  57. Not looking good for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not looking good for Microsoft.
    They do a lot of bad.

    http://vendors.bluwiki.org/#Microsoft

  58. True by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There was a time when parking fines in London were less than the cost of an all-day parking space. Predictably people parked wherever they liked. The solution was much stiffer fines, wheel clamping and the ability to tow cars away and impound them.

    The same thing is happening here, complying would cost more than the fine. We need some equivalent of "wheel clamping" for Microsoft.

    I wouldn't count on it happening though, I can see states getting used to a regular "microsoft fine" dividend. They will probably have a routine of Microsoft saying it will clean up, not doing so and being fined again.

    1. Re:True by ch-chuck · · Score: 5, Funny

      We need some equivalent of "wheel clamping" for Microsoft.

      How about bolting the chairs to the floor?

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    2. Re:True by QMO · · Score: 1
      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
  59. Illustrates why "intellectual property" confuses by tepples · · Score: 1

    Probably a terrible precendent, actually. Imagine some off-brand European retailer selling 'Windows XP' that they've compiled and pressed to disk. People would think they're getting A Microsoft Product but actually its someone else who made it. Then Microsoft's reputation would be tarnished if the copy is bad. Grandparent is thinking of copyright law. You're thinking of trademark law. These are completely separate animals, and fans of the blanket term "intellectual property" gloss over the difference on purpose to produce just the kind of confusion you're experiencing.
  60. Unless Sen. McCain is elected President by tepples · · Score: 1

    The Bushies and the whole neocon (neofascist) crew are not going to be in office in January 2009. Citation needed that Senator Obama or Senator Clinton is a shoe-in to beat Senator McCain.
  61. Tab by Kamineko · · Score: 3, Funny

    Microsoft's response: "Just put it on our tab!"

  62. it will be a GREAT place to do business when... by toby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...they finally purge themselves entirely of your corrupt American corporations.

    --
    you had me at #!
  63. they ARE barred from some workplaces... by toby · · Score: 1

    Mine, for example. :-)

    --
    you had me at #!
  64. What? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    Evidence please (and no, I don't work for HP.)

    If on the other hand you are talking about the niche market that is photo printers, it's manifest that the people who control the ink technology can also do the best job of specifying the paper. In the old days of silver photography, it was wise to use Kodak chemicals with Kodak film, and Ciba formulations with Cibachrome. On the other hand, anybody who builds a volume office laser printer that won't work with commodity paper stock will not be long in the business.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:What? by downix · · Score: 1

      Quite right, hence why I spefied office printers, not photo printers. In photo printing, the rules are far more specific, as you'd expect due to the much more difficult task in making photo-quality setups. And what old days of silver photography? **hrms from within his darkroom** And that is actually not the case, as I use Ilford paper yet use Foma chemistry for it for the desired results. Mixing paper/chemistry has been common for over a century, and is infact a necessity for some photographic results. Kodachrome being processed in Foma reversal chemistry, for example, produces an incredible looking black and white slide with slight green tint, similar to a classic 50's photograph.

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
  65. Natural rights and government-granted rights by langelgjm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There have been several responses to your post basically all saying the same thing: that you are wrong because rights are not granted by the government.

    All of the negative responses to your post have utterly failed to distinguish between natural rights, or inalienable rights, or whatever you want to call them (perhaps some would even prefer "God-granted" rights; also, there are technical distinctions between the various names, but the sense is that you have them by default, they are not given to you), and rights that are granted by the government.

    Example of natural rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (From the Declaration of Independence).

    An example of a non-natural, government-granted right is something that should be familiar to most ./ers: copyright. While there are arguments to the contrary, the general understanding is that copyright doesn't have anything to do with human dignity, etc., and exists only by fiat of the government (which is why it can easily differ in various jurisdictions).

    In this particular case, the "right to be proprietary" is not a natural right. The EU has set conditions for participating in its marketplace, and it has the right to do this. End of story. You might not like it, but there's no inherent "right to be proprietary" to appeal to.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    1. Re:Natural rights and government-granted rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "right to be proprietary" is a property right. Microsoft owns their software, so they have the right to regulate its use in the manner of their choosing.

      Along with life and liberty, the right to property is one of the bedrock rights of a free society. Frankly, any society that restricts property rights (like the "right to be proprietary") has more in common with Communist Russia than they do with a free society.

    2. Re:Natural rights and government-granted rights by macslas'hole · · Score: 1

      Government's do not grant rights, as they have none to give. Corporation and other fictitious entities are created by their shareholders/constituents; their rights derive from the rights of the people who created them.
      The "right to be proprietary" is, indeed, a natural right. It is asserted by not sharing your creation. We, society, have deemed that sharing is good, therefore, in order to encourage it, we grant a limited exception to monopoly laws so that creators might benefit from their creations and that we might benefit from the sharing of them. Patent and copyright are not rights, they are rewards for creating and sharing.

      As an aside, I think Thomas Jefferson was wrong about the right to life being natural or unalienable. It is simply too easy to lose one's life; in fact, we all will lose it eventually; and nature can take it away at any time. Moreover, you may legitimately take the life of another e.g. in self-defense. However, you definitely have a natural and unalienable right to strive to stay alive.</semantic-rant>

      --
      Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
    3. Re:Natural rights and government-granted rights by macslas'hole · · Score: 1

      we grant a limited exception to monopoly laws so that ... That's BS. Let me correct myself.

      we withhold our right to take what we want, for a limited period of time, so that ... We forgo a short-term gain for, what we hope will be, a long-term gain of more creations.
      --
      Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
  66. I used to believe that... by argent · · Score: 1

    They've played their cards and lost, now is the time to just pay the fine, comply with the ruling and move on.

    They never complied with the rulings in the DoJ case even when they were on the verge of being broken up, *and* their non-compliance tactics were turning Windows into an unparalleled breeding ground for viruses and worms, so I have no reason to believe they've finished playing silly-beggars with the courts.

  67. Revenue, not profit by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This fine is going to have be paid in cold hard cash. Not vouchers, not rebates. CASH.

    That doesn't hurt MS revenue at all offcourse. Their revenue will remain the same, what this will hurt is their profit. 900 million euro's down the drain with no way to write it off hurts.

    You also got to remember that this is just the total so far, this isn't a speeding ticket, the amount will go up and up as long as MS doesn't comply.

    There are also other problems. The US is going to look a bit silly now with its own weak settlement. Exactly how many goverments are looking at this case and thinking "Mmm, I sure could use a couple of hundred millions while fighting for my citizens rights".

    No this hurts MS, not enough to bankrupt it, but even a company the size of MS can't just cough up a billion without it hurting and the end is so far not in sight.

    But you are right about their revenue, all those idiots who claim that MS could just pull out of the EU forget that that would cost MS far more money.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  68. Microsoft leaving Europe? Horrible for whom? by viraltus · · Score: 1

    definitely not Europe, I wish I could see that happen, that would make my day.

    --
    Dear /. CENSORS that set people's Karma to Neutral when you disagree with them: FUCK YOU!!
    1. Re:Microsoft leaving Europe? Horrible for whom? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      It might make your day that day. However, it would really spoil your day for a long time afterwards. It would cause a huge amount of damage to European business and government, starting with the security implications of the big software companies no longer providing updates, and continuing with the handover and retraining costs as businesses and public organisations tried to migrate and the loss of productivity from being forced to use inferior software or write something better in several key areas. In the meantime, stock markets that are already struggling would be undermined, governments would be raising taxes to cover the vast expenses they were incurring in dealing with their self-made problem, unemployment would rise...

      You just can't make sweeping changes like that to an entire market overnight. A sensible legal and economic framework will incentivise changes in behaviour in the public interest, and you might argue (though I would disagree) that requiring software interoperability is always in the public interest. Even then, you need to do things at a manageable pace. Biting the hand that feeds you is a bad idea, and when you have huge investment in several major existing pieces of software, legislating their developers out of your world is a dumb move.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:Microsoft leaving Europe? Horrible for whom? by viraltus · · Score: 1

      OK....

      Security problems not having updates: There will be 3rd company products to keep the crap alive long enough till it is trashed.
      Cost to Migrate: In the long term a LOT more cheaper than keeping paying Microsfot licenses. So actually good news.
      Inferior Software: hahaha... you gotta be kidding, right? Even if there were software that nor Linux or Mac could match those exclusively run on Microsoft, I can assure you that by the time Window is trash ANY company would try to get the piece of the cake before anyone else.
      Unemployment and the end of the world: Really, you're amusing.

      Biting the hand that feed us? Really Microsoft feeds NOTHING, only SUCKS.

      --
      Dear /. CENSORS that set people's Karma to Neutral when you disagree with them: FUCK YOU!!
    3. Re:Microsoft leaving Europe? Horrible for whom? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I'll reply in more detail, but for now: you seem to have missed the fundamental point that if you apply your proposed legal standards of required interoperability/compatibility to Microsoft, you must apply the same legal standards to all software vendors. By doing so, you would basically force Big Software to leave Europe, and probably close down a lot of Little Software businesses altogether.

      Oh, and if you laugh off the idea that those companies' offerings are, for the most part, significantly better than the freebie alternatives that cherish interoperability and standards so much, then I suggest that you're just being unrealistic. This sort of claim is made roughly every ten minutes on Slashdot. The defence is always to quote the same handful of relatively popular OSS titles, almost none of which are at all relevant in a business context, and then to apply some wishful thinking about the relative merits of a few more popular OSS titles. In this case, we can add to that ignoring the fact that many OSS products don't interact cleanly either, and with a small number of exceptions, arbitrary file formats are pretty much the norm there as well.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    4. Re:Microsoft leaving Europe? Horrible for whom? by viraltus · · Score: 1

      I basically disagree but, if you were right,and Microsoft would think you're right, then they would feel very secure not to pay the fine because they know that pushing Microsoft away from Europe would be a disaster for European community.

      BUT... you wanna bet they'll pay fine and say yessssir ?

      --
      Dear /. CENSORS that set people's Karma to Neutral when you disagree with them: FUCK YOU!!
  69. Microsoft Reduces its Offer for Yahoo! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

    Microsoft Reduces its Offer for Yahoo! by USD 1.3 Billion - now extending a hostile offer for only 43.3 billion dollars.

    Problem? Solved.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  70. Finally the correct exchange rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think Microsoft may ask the EU to use the M$ 1:1 euro exchange rate...

    Oh wait thats probably one of those abusive points the EU doesn't like, ho hum.

  71. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whatever Mr. Tinfoil Hat. "Oh Noes, teh big bad gubamint is gonnas taks all my monies. Dey is teh DICTATOR!" You know, there are real dictators in the world, who are truly evil, and are working to oppress their people. You won't find them in Europe though, no matter what your libertarian fantasies tell you. By comparing the government of the EU to real dictators, you are pissing in the eye sockets of all the people those real dictators have tortured and murdered.

    Try finding a way to voice your concerns without resorting to hyperbole. We're all pretty smart here, you don't need to make a bigger case than you've actually got for us to 'get it.'

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  72. That is because... by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    ...they know confiscation of their property would hurt more.

    Sure Microsoft could refuse to pay up, but then the confiscations of property GP mentioned would start. Until the fine is paid by auctioning off the confiscated stuff. Considering that such auctions tend to get less than regular prices, M$ would probably lose the money from more Windows sales than if they just pay the fine.

    And that is assuming that there are no confiscations of "intellectual property". I don't know if the law would allow those. But if yes, it could become really painful for M$.

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  73. Most likely BS by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    Europe, a loss leader ... given the exchange rate and the fact that most of their costs are in $$$ while the revenue is in EUR, and that their margin is astronomical, I call complete and utter BS.

  74. More fines, perhaps with a higher daily amount by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And just in case somebody would mistakenly believe that 'not paying' would be an option to Microsoft - no it is not, any more than ignoring government orders in USA. They can still appeal them in EU courts, but if the courts agree with Commission then it is final - and as it turns out you have pay the fines while waiting the final resolution:
    From Microsoft's 10-K filing:

    In March 2004, the European Commission issued a decision in its competition law investigation of us. The Commission concluded that we infringed European competition law by refusing to license to our competitors certain protocol technology in the Windows server operating systems and by including streaming media playback features in Windows desktop operating systems. The Commission ordered us to license the protocol technology to our competitors and to develop and make available a version of the Windows desktop operating system that does not include specified media playback software. The Commission also fined us 497 million ($605 million). We appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance. In July 2006, the European Commission determined that we had not complied with the technical documentation requirements of the 2004 Decision, and fined us 281 million ($351 million). We have appealed this fine to the Court of First Instance. We have expensed and paid both fines, pending resolution of the appeals.

  75. Governments set rules for market participation by langelgjm · · Score: 1

    The "right to be proprietary" becomes subject to government regulation as soon as Microsoft decides to sell their product on the market. When you participate in the market, you agree to abide by its rules. Those rules are set by the government.

    Example: in the US, the FDA regulates pharmaceutical products. While you may think that a pharmaceutical company has a "property right" to do whatever they want with their product, when they want to sell that product on the market, they must abide by a number of rules that are set by the government. They do not have the right to simply sell any product they want, in any manner they want.

    You may not agree with the fundamental concept behind the fact that the government sets the rules of participation in the market, but it is still a fact.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  76. Enforcement is always the problem by cheros · · Score: 1

    The big question is simply how the EU is going to enforce payment (and what they'r going to do with the cash in the IMHO unlikely event they manage to extract it from Microsoft).

    I have a feeling that Neelie Kroes is not going to get suckered in by some stupid voucher scheme that MS was allowed to get away with in the US. That means hard $$ (sorry, Euros, can't accept a devalued currency :-)), but I don't think MS has *ever* coughed up this volume of cash (not that I know of, I'd be happy to hear of evidence to the contrary).

    This means the entertainment has only begun. If MS doesn't pay it'll face daily fine increases until Mrs Kroes decides to simply shut them down instead, and that means a whole new game begins (expect serious, and I mean SERIOUS blackmail attempts by US officials - we had some demonstration of that already when it began).

    For MS there's also the problem of side effects. Up until now it's been able to delude shareholders into thinking that it's just the cost of being succesfull, but if they pay this time it'll signal the shareholders that the game is up, and it's likely they'll start leaving the ship on perception of it slowly taking on water. When THAT happens all hell will break lose, and I think it's that more than the EU fines themselves that has prompted Ballmer to start the current pretend Open Source and Unix love fest.

    And it may all be too late already - it's going to be very, very interesting...

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  77. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Troll

    Good grief but the Microsoft shills are beginning to sound desperate. I mean, they've always been border line intellects, but now they're coming up with the most idiotic claims yet.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  78. Vouchers by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 0

    Let's celebrate when the fine has been paid.

    Why? What's to celebrate about a bunch of vouchers or "30%-off your next MS purchase" coupons?

    The most important thing would be to break the monopoly. Once the monopoly is gone, not only are the monopoly rents gone, but a double-handful of illegal and anticompetitive practices become difficult or impossible.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  79. Softwood Lumber by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    European regulators extracting wealth from American corporations so they can fund European corporations which compete directly with American corporations.

    ...and of course the US would never, say, charge an illegal tariff and then use it to subsidize their corporations would they?

  80. No, it does not. by ClioCJS · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You read into statements too not. It says exactly what it says. You're the one who read an implication into it.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  81. Speaking of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  82. What's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the difference between assault and GBH?

    If your company can drive the market, you're a monopoly.

  83. EU and Ireland by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    That would create a huge backlash of anti-EU feelings and seeing as Ireland is the only country who is going to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (Ireland are the only nation to have referendums for EU treaties), the EU would want to be quite nice to Ireland (Irish people have a habit of voting No to EU treaties). Ireland is very EU positive, and likely the country that has benefited most from EU membership. They hve basically gone from a third world status to one of the richest members of the union. Being richer than their old colonial masters (UK) is particularly pleasing to the Irish. Ireland did vote no once, but regarded it as a mistake, and they redid the referendum with the proper outcome. Denmark did something similar in 1992, but got some exceptions instead (we stay out of the Euro, the military and legal collaboration, and don't have EU citizenship).

    France and Holland votes no in 2005 to the "union constitution" which was then dead. To avoid a repeat of that all countries has pledged to avoid a referendums on the revised text, except Ireland whose constitution demands a referendum. Even Denmark also skip the referendum, despite having voted on every new treaty since 1973. Instead we will et another vote on the exceptions (which we have voted to keep twice already).
    1. Re:EU and Ireland by red+star+hardkore · · Score: 1

      If you actually lived in Ireland, you'd notice that there is actually quite an amount of resentment towards the EU. I'm not arguing that the EU have been bad for Ireland, it has been extremely beneficial. But, not all success of the Irish economy is due to the EU. A low corporation tax coupled with skilled workers is what attracted large corporations such as Microsoft, Intel, EMC, Apple, Dell, Pfizer, GSK, etc.

      Back to the resentment of the EU though... Many Irish people are extremely nationalistic and proud of our heritage, culture, etc. Many Irish feel that the EU is turning into some sort of United States of Europe. With Ireland being such a small country that would not have as much pull as the larger states, Irish people feel that we would be ruled by a collection of foreign states that don't have the best interests of the Irish people at heart. Ireland is a neutral country, but the EU is on the way to a single army which would nullify our neutrality (although many would argue we have lost that anyway by letting US war planes refuel here and letting CIA extraordinary-rendition pass through). We want to be able to make our own laws, not be told what we can and can't do from Brussels. The EU is changing from what it was originally, into a single country and many Irish people (and people from other EU countries) don't want that. That is why the Nice Treaty was voted against, and why so many countries opposed the EU constitution. Maybe your government told you that Irish people thought they made a mistake voting no the first time around for the Nice Treaty, but what actually happened was our government reworded it told us that it would be ok and we were to vote again (for the same thing) and it narrowly passed. We had already said No, the government should have just accepted that.

      Anyway, gone way off-topic here, but in reference to the original post: If Microsoft products were banned it would do a hell of a lot more damage to the EU than good. I can't speak for other countries but in Ireland, Microsoft would obviously close, as would Dell and EMC for example (which would mean that I am out of a job), as they use Microsoft OS's in their products. It would also cost companies billions upon billions overall throughout the EU to transition from Windows to Linux. It is not feasible.

  84. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good post!

  85. Actually, EU think MS has complied (since October) by RP99 · · Score: 1

    The news from today was merely Commission's way of saying that next time MS should not make them wait for three years that to happen (penalty announced today was for the last 16 months of non-compliance) http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/125&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/318&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

  86. The ABILITY to remove it. by LingNoi · · Score: 1

    You can't physically remove Internet Explorer because it's part of the desktop, so although you can install other web browsers you will always have IE there.

    This IS anti-competitive as it has caused MSN and other apps to force you to use Internet Explorer even when it is not the default web browser. It has lead to people programming code with the assumption that IE will always be available so they will force their browser choice on the user.

  87. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by Flipao · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't have free trade when a single corporation owns the marketplace. That is why the EU stepped in, to preserve "free trade" ensuring there IS competition.

    The EU is not an evil government and Microsoft is not a defenseless do-gooder. This is not the first time MS has been in trouble because of its business practices, althought in the US, since Bush came to power, they've sure enjoyed a nice ride over there, haven't they?

  88. Server market by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    > Microsoft is 33, Linux is barely 17.

    Microsoft is has only been 15 years in the server market, unless you count Xenix or third party add-ons to MS Windows. Linux was there from the start.

    > hmm, will it be Illegal for MS to screw Linux?

    In US yes, in (most of) EU no.

  89. So because they broke the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they must get paid to undo the damage they caused?

    Hey! How about 0%?

    And if MS were interested in knowing the answer and not being fined, WHY NOT ASK THE COMMISSION!!!

    1. Re:So because they broke the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have. When Microsoft asks what license fees are acceptable, the commission just replies "they can't be too high".

  90. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "You know, there are real dictators in the world, who are truly evil, and are working to oppress their people."

    The removal of powers from elected parliaments, by devious method, to an unelected and undemocratic executive, Council of ministers, which holds its meetings in secret, unelected commissioners, and a very weak parliament that is bought and paid for by the latter.

    "You won't find them in Europe though, no matter what your libertarian fantasies tell you"

    Yes, Europe has a fine tradition historically to be able to ignore history and repeat past mistakes yet again. Europe's ability for arrogance is only matched by its fantastic ability for creating evil, two world wars, and hundreds of millions of dead. How could I possibly not trust a European elite running out of control, and with a massive cavern where democratic due process should exist, but doesn't.

    This same EU that's failed 13 years of account audits?

    Do you have a good reason for handing 899 Million to people who can't even count? No, didn't think so.

    --
    We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
  91. Cynicism makes you cool by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Except, no, it doesn't. Generally, people externalize their own belief system. Thus, corrupt people expect corruption. People who habitually question the motives of others often have questionable motives themselves. And cynicism as the word is commonly used today, is a refuge for the intellectually lazy. Disbelieving everything, or believing the worst of everyone, is the lazy way out. Truly intelligent people consider things on a case by case basis.

    You make absolutely no case here. Your argument boils down to, "Yeah, well, you can't prove they aren't corrupt, so they must be, it's just human nature." I'd like to formally enter my own hypothesis here, which is that it isn't human nature to be corrupt. Just yours. You simply excuse your own corruption by thinking that everyone else does it, too, and you just have to be that way so all the corrupt douchebags of the world can't take advantage of you. As a side hypothesis, I posit that your cynicism is simply a defense mechanism stemming from deep seated insecurities.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  92. Re:If Microsoft were a TV then EU would be crazy by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Nobody is bitching about IE any more. But the facts were that Microsoft's leveraging its monopoly by giving away a browser with its OS while there was for-pay competition destroyed Netscape, and was in fact explicitely put in Windows to destroy Netscape.

    And what monopoly does Apple have? Itunes? Please, there are many many ways to get music off the Internet. Stop being a shill, it makes you into a pathetic retard.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  93. Because it is retarded? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Has the dollar been dropping against the Euro recently? Yes. What does that have to do overall with the state of currency? 5 years is nothing in the span of a currency. The dollar, like all currencies, does fluctuate. It goes up and down against other currencies due to a whole slew of different issues.

    The dollar does not just drop. If you think that's the case, well then you fails at the economics. You might even notice on your graph that though the overall trend is downward, there is a ton of fluctuation.

    1. Re:Because it is retarded? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The thing is, you should be expecting the dollar to drop against foreign currencies in general. This is because of the balance of payments. Also because of the amount of dollars held by foreign countries as debt.

      As such, this chart of the dollar dropping against the Euro is exactly what one should expect to see. And since experiment and theory concur, it seems like an "expected to be true statement" to say "The dollar drops against the Euro."

      I'll grant that five years isn't a long time period, but my estimate is that if you could check the dollar against the average of world currencies for the last three decades that you would seem the same general tendency. (Though not so strongly, the Euro is currently an exceptionally strong currency. It may well weaken in the near future, but I see little to indicate that the dollar may strengthen.)

      Caution: I Am Not A Financial Analyst.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  94. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "The EU is not an evil government"

    No, thats why it finger prints children without permission, why it commits to propaganda in the classroom, and why it sanctions policies like arranging the imprisonment of Journalists (Hans Martin Tillack), has mass corruption, a secret executive that makes the US effort at balanced executive look brilliant, even though we know the US model has failings, only funds pro EU sides in supposed democracy, goes out of its way to wreck African farming, and operates a climate of fear in the one place where democratic elections lead to MEPs being representative.

    If they dissent, they are threatened, fined, and dissent is not allowed to be shown via media services supposedly available to all.

    That's before you talk of a Commission plan to control the press and only allow a select (their own selection) group of Journalists to provide press, rather than IFJ access normal anywhere else.

    Slashdot is supposed to be filled with intelligent people. If Bush created a plan to control the press corps in the US via a groomed method you'd be up in arms. People need to wake up. What is happening in Europe today is a death of democracy never seen before in the history of man. 500 million people being moved from democracy, and representative parliaments to dictatorship.

    --
    We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
  95. Re:If Microsoft were a TV then EU would be crazy by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    I'm an eternally amazed at just how stupid some /. posters. Monopoly is a reference to position within the market, not to some sort of hardware lock-in. Apple is not a monopoly. It has, at best, estimate something around 10% of the PC market. It is therefore not a monopoly.

    Here's a tip. Quit picking on Apple and pick up a fucking dictionary.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  96. Sorry, can't do that by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All the EU members are signatories to the same copyright treaties the US is. Of the many provisions, one of them is that you have to respect copyrights from other nations. That applies in all cases. So if someone in France releases, say, a book in France and only sells it there, someone in the US can't just copy it and start distributing it over here. Doesn't matter that the author isn't choosing to make it available in the US, that's their right. The US still has to obey the copyright.

  97. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed. spun is my hero.

    Well said, as usual.

  98. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by pravuil · · Score: 1

    You won't find them in Europe though..

    You find them everywhere in all forms of societies. It goes beyond race, sex, age, affiliation and religion. There is always a form of oppression that can be found anywhere.

    Go to Europe and visit the lower class sections. Of course when people go there they spend most of the time in the safe areas. Sometimes tourists go to the Red Light districts and have a heyday there. I'm not agreeing with the previous post that the EU is a dictator. They have had so much bad history altogether to learn from that mistake.

    They still have problems with the Eastern Bloc (or what they like to call it now: Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)), not to mention what's going on in Serbia at the moment and if you don't think that's not going to affect the EU over time you are crazy.

    I have mixed feelings about it because instead of suing Microsoft they might start suing other companies from the US because of technical advantages they might have. It's good that Microsoft is having to deal with their own sense of ego but how far can it go? With all love /. has been giving the EU recently, I have to worry about the liberal sentiment because as wonderful as the EU would like to portray itself, they are by far, not perfect. Europe is a wonderful place to visit, especially if you are multilingual. But one thing Europe is not is greener on the other side of the fence. Regardless of all the perks and quality of life they offer, things can change to suit their needs in time.

  99. Capitolism? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think you may have accidentally struck upon something here!

    That is exactly the system we have in place. A well-regulated market, structured to further advantage the entrenched position of already concentrated wealth, at the expense of all other consideration.

    UGN Indeed!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  100. mod parent up by Random+Web+Developer · · Score: 1

    i already posted so i can't mod you up myself, but you, beurocrad conrad, are technically correct, the best kind of correct

    --
    Artists against online scams http://www.aa419.org/
  101. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by Flipao · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If Bush created a plan to control the press corps in the US via a groomed method you'd be up in arms.

    Press corps?... you mean any of those corporations like Sony or Disney or News Corp that pretty much control what is seen or read in the US?

    Propaganda?, try watching the trailers for the US and international versions of the new "Indiana Jones" trailer.

    And no, regardless of what you may have read chidren do not get finger printed without permission, and no before you even bring up the topic... Socialized Medicine is not a bad thing.
  102. The Euro is a new currency by Solandri · · Score: 1
    The Euro is a relatively new currency so record highs and lows are naturally going to be more frequent. I commented on this back when the Canadian dollar reached parity with the U.S. dollar. The U.S. dollar has not set new lows against any of the other established currencies, meaning things have been worse for the dollar in the past than they are now.

    Given the current U.S. debt situation, the dollar's drop in value is actually a good thing for the U.S. Now all that debt that's owed to foreigners is worth less. In fact, after you account for inflation, interest, and the exchange rates, Europe may very well have paid the U.S. for the privilege of having lent it money.

  103. Excessive? It's about one week's income... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY07/earn_rel_q4_07.mspx

    $1 billion is a slap on the wrist for Microsoft. It's probably more profitable for them to pay the fines than to comply with the directive.

    --
    No sig today...
  104. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

    I am waiting to hear about the EU taking possession of MS's Datacenters in Europe and a deadline given before the equipment is auctioned off for payment the daily fines that are accruing with MS's non-compliance.

    --
    Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
  105. Exactly WHY They Got Fined by maz2331 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "they had to make them work with the current domains that are administrated using Active Directory, use exchange servers for mail etc. I think they would have heart attacks."

    THAT right there is the reason why the EU took their action against MS. What the original order said is that MS was ordered to release full and complete interfacing specifications and protocols. They dragged their heels on this for three years, and then tried issuing the specs under a super-restrictive license along with a huge fee.

    EU called "shenanigans" on that one, and smacked them with a fine of 2M Euros per day.

    They were warned, tried to play lawyer-ball, and lost. Big.

    With specs and protocols, Active Directory and Exchange support would probably already be in the Linux machines, and would at most take a small amount of configuration for site-specifics like domain name, etc.

    Instead, you are locked-in to ONLY purchasing MS clients right now. And it is BECAUSE of this that the EU took action.

    Basically, the EU rule is now "inside the box: MS owns that and can keep secret. Outside the box: customer owns that and it must be publicly documented."

    1. Re:Exactly WHY They Got Fined by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Instead, you are locked-in to ONLY purchasing MS clients right now. And it is BECAUSE of this that the EU took action.

      I agree with your entire post right up to this point. It doesn't matter if people are locked into only purchasing MS clients (from a legality standpoint). The issue the EU had was that you were forced to buy MS server in order to service MS clients conveniently. The issue is the effect this has on the sale of server OS's as a result of MS's tying to their client OS (monopoly).

  106. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "Press corps?... you mean any of those corporations like Sony or Disney or News Corp that pretty much control what is seen or read in the US?"

    Its amazing. 100% Guaranteed, if you point out something drastic happening in the EU, people start throwing you examples about how bad things are in the US. Only, I don't live in the US, and bad things happening in the US means bad things happening in the EU can be ignored - or better yet, we can just pretend its not real.

    "Propaganda?, try watching the trailers for the US and international versions of the new "Indiana Jones" trailer."

    Indiana Jones is a commercial film. On a serious note, did you ever in your life contemplate and examine EU propaganda?
    EU to launch 7 million euro anniversary PR campaign and use Eurovision. The Austrian press has revealed that the EU has earmarked more than 7 million euros for an ambitious PR campaign which aims to try and win back the hearts of European citizens at its 50th anniversary next year. As part of this effort the EU has launched an online competition - 'design a birthday logo for the EU' - whose motto is "Happy birthday EU", which will become the official symbol of the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. The Commission is offering 12,000 euros worth of prizes, as well as an invitation to a prize ceremony, for the winning entries, which must "reflect the EU's achievements (such as peace and prosperity) and its future". On the website EU Communications Commissioner Margot Wallstrom says, "50 years of peaceful co-operation and growing prosperity and security in Europe is really something to celebrate. It is also an excellent occasion to discuss what we expect from the EU in the future, for our children and generations to come." Click here to see the website.

    The Sunday Telegraph has seen a memo by Wallstrom showing that the Commission also wants to link the Eurovision song contest to the anniversary. Viewers would be told about "the need of close co-operation in our common project", "solidarity" and "the benefits that European integration has brought to its citizens". Some of the new member states are not keen. An unnamed Czech government source said, "For most of the new members, this plan brought back memories of Communist times." (Die Presse, Sunday Telegraph, 23 July)

    EU propaganda makes Bush and US efforts cited by people like you look utterly pathetic. But its clearly working, you are not aware of their activities.

    "And no, regardless of what you may have read chidren do not get finger printed without permission, and no before you even bring up the topic... Socialized Medicine is not a bad thing."

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/07/kiddyprinting_allowed/
    http://www.statewatch.org/news/2006/jul/08fingerprinting-children.htm
    http://www.eudemocrats.org/bg/23/article/21/
    http://www.computing.co.uk/computeractive/news/2195260/becta-guidelines-fingerprinting
    http://www.leavethemkidsalone.com/

    Its not exactly secret, the funny part is your head is so far up your backside you think its not happening.

    Tell me, do you think that the American bashers round these parts would take to the idea of America taking fingerprints of all children without permission of parents? Even then, that kind of Policy would be openly discussed in the US. In the EU it gets talked about in secret closed session and just implemented. The executive does not answer to the people.

    As for Socialised Medicine, I live in the UK. I live in a socialised medical system, and I can tell you Michael Moore was talking such incredible disinformation about the UK NHS that its not even funny. But thats a side show when ta

    --
    We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
  107. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by fondacio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "You know, there are real dictators in the world, who are truly evil, and are working to oppress their people." The removal of powers from elected parliaments, by devious method, to an unelected and undemocratic executive, Council of ministers, which holds its meetings in secret, unelected commissioners, and a very weak parliament that is bought and paid for by the latter.

    Too bad that your prejudice has kept you from keeping track of recent developments. This criticism has been levelled at the EU for a long time and was to an extent justified, but guess what? They have actually done something about it. The European Parliament, which is directly elected and no longer as weak as it used to be, has received new powers with every treaty revision since 1992 and plays an integral role in EU law-making. Meetings of the Council of Ministers are not secret, as you can see on its website, which states: "All Council deliberations under the co-decision procedure are open to the public. The Council's first deliberations on legislative acts other than those adopted by co-decision are open to the public. The Council regularly holds public debates on important issues affecting the interests of the Union and its citizens, as well as policy debates on the Council's programmes." FYI, the co-decision procedure is the most commonly used procedure in EU legislation. Granted, institutional reform is slow, the EU still has work to do in terms of its accountability and communication with citizens, but that hardly makes it an evil oppressive dictatorship, which is the point that you were trying to make. Apart from Belarus, you will indeed not find oppressive dictatorships in Europe at this time, and the EU was established precisely to keep it this way, which brings me to your next point.

    Yes, Europe has a fine tradition historically to be able to ignore history and repeat past mistakes yet again. Europe's ability for arrogance is only matched by its fantastic ability for creating evil, two world wars, and hundreds of millions of dead. How could I possibly not trust a European elite running out of control, and with a massive cavern where democratic due process should exist, but doesn't.

    Please explain first who you mean by "Europe" and who exactly is being "arrogant". Is it Britain, Germany, Russia, France, Greece, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Sweden? Does every single one of this country have a "fine tradition to be able to ignore history and repeat past mistakes"? Last time I checked, Germans are still making up for the crimes of the nazis and not exactly preparing a second Holocaust. The Scandinavians no longer send out marauding bands of pirates to rob frightened people in coastal places. In Spain acknowledgment is slowly growing for the abuses and oppression of the Franco dictatorship, even on the political right. Italy does not seem eager to resurrect the Roman Empire. You may note that none of these examples has anything to do with the other, which illustrates that you can't generalise across an entire continent. I could even go on and argue that the one country which seemed unable to learn from history (notably European colonial history) in the last few years, with an elite running out of control causing millions of dead, does not lie in Europe, but I don't want to ignite another flamewar. In any case, as I mentioned before, the EU was established to prevent repetition of the mistakes of the past. It has been rather successful at that, considering that France and Germany are unlikely to go to war with each other at any point in the near future. It obviously does not have a perfect record, as was shown in the fall of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Still, I fail to see how you can see the current European elite as being "out of control" or suggest that it will cause millions of people to die any time soon.

    This same EU that's failed 13 years of account audits?

    What does failing 13

  108. Euro vs. American Idea Of Rights by maz2331 · · Score: 0, Troll

    In America, the general idea is that rights are granted by virtue of being born ("from God" or "natural law"). Governments in the American ideal merely recognize and protect pre-existing rights, they don't "give" them.

    In Europe, the mindset is much more that the government grants the rights, and individuals have no "natural rights".

  109. It's only one week's income.... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    In real terms it's not much more than a slap on the wrist for a company like MS.

    --
    No sig today...
  110. Re:Ugly Americans by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not that I'm a fan of Microsoft...but if M$ was a European company do you think the EU would go after them so hard?

    We don't have to wonder, we just have to look at the EU council's record of prosecuting companies based in the EU for antitrust abuse. (They've done it many times.)

    I think not.

    You research not... but you still make uninformed assertions.

  111. No judge, just a commission? by mehtars · · Score: 1
    What bother's me the most is that the entire ruling was doled out by the European Commission rather than an impartial Judge. From the wikipedia page, the european commission has executive and legislative powers-- however a civil suit like this one should be dealt with by the judiciary instead.

    This is why I don't believe the ruling is fair to Microsoft-- its like having the judge, jury and executioner all embodied by one body.

    1. Re:No judge, just a commission? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2

      What bother's me the most is that the entire ruling was doled out by the European Commission rather than an impartial Judge.

      I think you are mistaken. The commission ruled on the illegality as is their charter as an executive body (like the DoJ in the US). Microsoft then appealed the decision bringing it before the EU courts (judicial) and lost their appeal (in Sept 2007). MS then declined to further appeal the decision (announced in October 2007).

      however a civil suit like this one should be dealt with by the judiciary instead.

      This is a common misconception. In both the US and EU, antitrust abuse is a criminal offense, not a civil one. The confusion stems from the fact that most criminal cases begin as civil suits against the monopolist and are then taken over and made criminal cases by the executive body. If you recall, for example, it was the US Dept. of Justice V. Microsoft. Tat was not the DoJ suing MS in civil court for a contract violation against them.

      This is why I don't believe the ruling is fair to Microsoft-- its like having the judge, jury and executioner all embodied by one body.

      I can see where you would get your perception... news coverage is very soft and not detailed. I hope I've helped to clear this up for you.

    2. Re:No judge, just a commission? by sepluv · · Score: 1

      however a civil suit like this one should be dealt with by the judiciary instead.
      I wouldn't really describing a ruling by a competition regulator as a civil suit, and it was dealt with by the judiciary (of whom MS has shown and publicly expressed contempt) on numerous occasions (see court orders) as part of the appeals process.
      --
      Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
      [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
    3. Re:No judge, just a commission? by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "I think you are mistaken. The commission ruled on the illegality as is their charter as an executive body (like the DoJ in the US)."

      An unelected body, hand picked, usually with bad people like Mandelson, part of a totally undemocratic and appalling Executive that has documented failings in terms of democratic deficit?

      "Microsoft then appealed the decision bringing it before the EU courts (judicial) and lost their appeal (in Sept 2007). MS then declined to further appeal the decision (announced in October 2007)."

      These courts are kangeroo courts controlled, and owned by the executive. Hans Martin Tillack lost his case too, but don't be shocked. Thats how dictatorships work.

      "This is a common misconception. In both the US and EU, antitrust abuse is a criminal offense, not a civil one. The confusion stems from the fact that most criminal cases begin as civil suits against the monopolist and are then taken over and made criminal cases by the executive body. If you recall, for example, it was the US Dept. of Justice V. Microsoft. Tat was not the DoJ suing MS in civil court for a contract violation against them."

      No, its you that has a misconception. Read what is being said by these high handed none elected people. Lets review:-

      "Microsoft was the first company in 50 years of E.U. competition policy that the commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision," the European Union's competition commissioner Neelie Kroes said in a statement. "I hope that today's decision closes a dark chapter in Microsoft's record of noncompliance with the commission's March 2004 decision."

      (Doubtful, since you commissioner are still progressing two other cases against them.)

      "In March 2004 the commission ordered Microsoft to disclose interoperability information to competitors within 120 days. Its antitrust regulators later found that the company was charging excessively high royalties and patent fees that effectively foreclosed rival vendors from obtaining the information."

      (So, they complied, but you didn't like how they complied. Did you state how much this should be made available for? No.. didn't think so.)

      "In a press conference, Ms. Kroes indicated that the fine was calculated on the basis that Microsoft was in breach of the commission's order for 488 days. She said that the amount represented 60 percent of the maximum $2.2 billion fine that the commission could have imposed.

      She said, "It was never a pleasure" to impose a fine, but characterised the commission's action as a reasonable reaction to an "unreasonable" price charged by Microsoft for information crucial to competitors. "This has had a negative effect on millions of offices and companies and governments around the world," she said."

      (Note carefully the comments. What you are seeing is the ambition of people out of control. Its not about MS in the EU, now its Millions of offices and companies and governments around the world. I did not know the EU was so brazen in its new model imperialism, but why hold back. Are the fines levied if MS fails to comply with the EU when outside the EU? Do tell, I'd really like to know..)

      "With regard to Microsoft's offer of more information, she said "we don't want talk, we want compliance. If you cheat the rules, you will be caught."

      (What you mean is, we have someone in our sights, and fully intend to rake in some very nice extra cash for our dictatorship, and there is fuck all anyone can do about it.)

      "She added, "This should be a signal to the outside world, and in particular to Microsoft, that we stick to our line.""

      (Its a warning sign of things to come. Microsoft is the first, it won't be the last.)

      Microsoft's troubles in the European Union aren't anywhere near over yet. It's still facing two antitrust investigations there, one addressing interoperability and a second related to the alleged "tying" of unrelated software products.

      No doubt our friend the unelected, totally unrepresentative, Nellie will not enjoy hitting Microsoft with fines. No, off course she won't. *Roll Eyes*

      --
      We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
    4. Re:No judge, just a commission? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2

      Wow, you seem to enjoy ranting. In any case, you seem to range from slightly off topic to way off topic with regard to my post. You can argue how democratic or impartial the process has been, or even if you think it was biased. That does not, however have anything to do with the salient points of my comment. That is to say, the original poster was incorrect in it was not only the executive branch but also the judicial branch and it was a criminal case instead of a civil one. As to the rest of your commentary, it is pretty clear Microsoft is breaking the law as a business plan and has gone further than any other company in refusing to comply with court orders to stop breaking the law. What is happening is no surprise to Microsoft as they have always planned on paying legal fees, bribes, settlements, and fines, betting that those expenses would be smaller than the profit generated by their criminal actions. I don't really see why anyone would be upset when they have to pay some o those fines.

  112. Re:Ugly Americans by doktor-hladnjak · · Score: 2, Informative

    You could always ask big pharma...

  113. Keep God out of this? by rewt66 · · Score: 1

    That would also require keeping the Declaration of Independence out of this.

    Though the way the parent complains about stupidity in the EU, it sounds like he's European. That might explain why he missed or ignored the reference to the Declaration of Independence.

  114. Citation? by rewt66 · · Score: 1

    Citation unavailable until November...

  115. Re:If Microsoft were a TV then EU would be crazy by erroneus · · Score: 1

    You must not be listening. Microsoft's OS dominance has been leveraged to make MSIE the "default" browser for most users. The problem is that MSIE has many "broken" aspects that requires many complex web sites be written specifically to work with MSIE. If MSIE was more compliant to standards, there wouldn't be much of a problem.

    Yes, people are still complaining about MS's monopoly abuse where the browser is concerned... they most certainly are.

  116. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

    Its amazing. 100% Guaranteed, if you point out something drastic happening in the EU, people start throwing you examples about how bad things are in the US.

    Yeah, here on Slashdot that is likely true because the majority of users are from the US. As a general trend, however, I see a difference between the attitudes of people in the EU and US as follows: Most people in the both US and EU assume everything in the US is superior to the rest of the world, while a minority of more informed people tend to assume things in the US are worse than in the EU and a very small majority try not to make any assumptions at all and research topics individually; the difference being that people in the EU have firsthand experience with the EU, whereas people in the US have firsthand experience with the US. The same conclusion is drawn from very different data sets which may be used to infer different social trends. Or maybe the people I've met are selected in such a way as to make it seem like these are real trends.

  117. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
    Few points:

    7 M euros is 2 eurocent per EU citizen of propaganda. How much has the US spent on the presidential election so far?

    Fingerprints. Present in passports from June 2009 to be able to meet the US visa requirements

    President of the EU? Statutory position. Blair would do just as well as any other politician that's survived national politics. They've all got blood on their hands anyway. Blair, Prodi, Aznar, Schroeder, Chirac, Berlusconi? Let's take Blair.

  118. Re:Well... Still, that's NOTHING... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Since ms makes that much in PROFITS (not revenue) per MONTH off it's (illegal) monopoly, the find is nothing. They should penilize (yep) ms that much per WEEK. Hit them enough to make it hurt, to comply, to open up...

    Check out:

    http://theworld.org/?q=node/16292

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  119. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by cycoj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe you could actually supply some facts to back your claims up? or are you just trolling. BTW according to the Reporters sans frontieres Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2007 (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025) almost every EU country ranks in front of the US. Ah but right it rather believe some slashdot troll then one of the most respected freedom of the press monitoring groups in the world.

    BTW I'm getting fcking fingerprinted every time I enter the US, so don't give me those stupid finger printing examples.

  120. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by cycoj · · Score: 1

    Ha you're from the UK even better. The state which is currently vigorously working on making 1984 a reality. Now there's someone in a glass house throwing stones. Now I actually do agree with some of your points, but you'd be a lot more credible if you wouldn't come across as one of those typical (usually US-based) EU bashers who don't know what they are talking about. And btw, talking about the EU birthday party as being an exceptional propaganda scheme, that's just ridiculous. Sure it is propaganda, but how's that different to the amount to the US July 4th celebrations, the French Bastille day celebrations, or the amount of money spent on the British monarchy, which is let's face it mainly a big propaganda operatus as well.

  121. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by davesays · · Score: 0

    First, I *could*not*agree*more* with your point about vicious dictators. But the "pissing in the eye sockets" bit seems out of place in a plea to refrain from hyperbole...

  122. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by spun · · Score: 1

    I tried to resist. I really did.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  123. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by justinkz · · Score: 0

    right, because the existence of a greater evil means we should ignore any relatively lesser evil.

  124. Re:I hope they do not pay by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

    Some of us have been trying to get rid of the influence of Brussels on our country for years, but with a regrettable lack of success so far. :-(

    Yeah, it's really hard to get rid of influence of Brussels when you ARE in Brussels :)
  125. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by DaleCooper82 · · Score: 2, Funny

    If Bush created a plan to control the press corps in the US via a groomed method you'd be up in arms. I always thought this mission is accomplished with Fox News.
    --
    :: There is no light at the end of a tunnel. There is a tunnel after a tunnel : Thom Y. ::
  126. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by rtb61 · · Score: 1
    Actually not to be too picky but in terms of how things are in the US, you actually have to go on a state by state basis, as there is substantial difference in the economic, social, cultural and political nature of each of the states within the United States, often far more pronounced than you would find in other countries due to the whole illogical 'States Rights' power play and the perceived social detachment from the 'Federal' government.

    Of course this is far more pronounced in the EU, being a coalition of independent countries, some of which are prospering far more than others but overall all the countries of the EU are doing better economically and politically than they were prior to the union.

    So to pick out the worst in the US you just need to focus on the most ineffectual and corrupt state governments and their influence on the Federal government, and pretty much the same can be done with Europe. Now if you are looking for the best, well, it is pretty hard for the US to top Europe, because no matter how hard you might wish, the worst state governments (corruption, cronyism, mismanagement and, religiosity in lieu of substance) still drag down the whole Federal government and in turn every other state government but in EU the worst countries have no where near the same impact on the better performing countries.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  127. Yay! by GregPK · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More money for corrupted EU politicians... I think 100 percent of the settlements regarding Microsoft should be Donated to non-profit organizations like the special olympics..

    1. Re:Yay! by Zentac · · Score: 0

      Yeah cause the people who where hurt most by Microsoft's mall practice where the disabled huh

    2. Re:Yay! by GregPK · · Score: 1

      Yep, according to them Microsoft hurt governments, consumers, and businesses. Blah, blah.. The people most hurt are the ones who have the most money. Microsoft has among the highest non-profit donations among companies in the world. So it only makes more sense to continue that tradition and just donate the money to non-profit organizations.

  128. Re:1.3 billion ~= nothing, not to stock holders by ClamIAm · · Score: 1

    The political storm sweeping the US right now is like nothing I have ever seen before. And I lived through most of the 1950s and 1960s.

    This is kind of off-topic, but I just have to say that this statement right here gives me hope. I'm in my early 20s, and I really didn't enjoy gaining my political consciousness with GWB as president.

  129. Re:1.3 billion ~= nothing, not to stock holders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Step 1: Make some doomsday claim, oh and add some fascist conspiracy in there too, for good measure.
    Step 2: Cover yourself by saying all your bad predictions may not happen for years and years.
    Step 3: ???
    Step 4: PROFIT!

    I call bullshit.

    How about this for a conspiracy: Microsoft is an incredibly successful company with a huge portfolio of software. Everyone buys their stuff. IBM and the rest of the tech world can't compete with Microsoft, so they fight them with PR and by buddying up with regulators... eventually getting them on their side... and ultimately using the EU as nothing more than a competitive tactic against Microsoft.

    Makes at least as much sense as your wacky theory if you think about it - and I didn't even need to add fascism to the mix.

  130. US vs Europe by Compumyst · · Score: 1

    I find it funny that Europe is attempting to force an American company to change how they do business. Now, don't get me wrong, I hate M$ as much as the next /.'er, but would it not be an interesting slap in the face to the EU if Microsoft told them to buzz off and stopped selling and supporting their products over there (Feed 'em the line, "Don't like how we run things? Fine. We'll take our business elsewhere."). Yes, that would be a lot of revenue lost, but I'm pretty sure that the EU would start begging Microsoft to come back.

    --
    What's done's in the past, forever shall last.
    Work is work; life is life; fair is not!
  131. Re:YOU PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING PUSSY HOLES by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

    Mod the 1st two lines of the parent up and the linux one flamebait.....
    This is how capitalism works:

    Companies try to get money in ANY way possible. They aren't immoral, they are just things who's sole goal is money
    Governments keep companies in check, and stop them from committing any wrong doings. They like companies have no morals and are just a thing.
    People keep governments in check and stop governments from doing wrong doings. They have the morals which are to propagate through the above two.

    If things work properly and people do their jobs capitalism/democracy works fine. You CANNOT bitch at a company for being immoral. You can accuse it of breaking the rules. But if it just found loopholes thats not the companies fault it is the governments for leaving loopholes and ours for not bitch slapping the government. In this case the system appears to be working, MS is being fines for breaking the rules. But griping generally about the company is pointless.

  132. Contrast between UK and USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of posts here (and your email address!) support my initial reaction to your post - you are not an American. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you, but your post is a great example of the difference in viewpoints between Americans and Europeans. As others have already pointed out, Americans are ferverent individualists, and the notion that the government grants rights is abhorrent to almost the entire political spectrum here. For what it's worth, while I too share my fellow Americans romantic view of human rights I suspect your post is accurate.

  133. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by Lord+Artemis · · Score: 1

    I don't see a reason why Microsoft should be let off the hook because the EU has trouble getting its bookkeeping right.
    I don't think he's suggesting that MS be let off, merely that the EU should get their act together with their bookkeeping. After all, $1.337 billion is a very non-trivial amount of money, and it should be handled appropriately by the aforementioned bookkeepers.
    --
    Air is just like fog, but it's not gray.
  134. Monopolies and Governments by wingfinger · · Score: 1
    While I dont like monopolies and abusive business practices:
    • Why doesn't every country fine Microsoft? Think of the money.
    • Governments easily make laws and without Microsofts agreement (Dont say its in my country/on my land or dems the laws -- thats not my point -- its the EUs).
    • After you extradite the CEOs to the EU, will you then sent them to every other country that asks for them as well?
    • Be unpopular with other CEOs, pay the fine quickly.
    • If a government wants something, be responsive and do whatever is asked quickly, thoroughly and to their satisfaction...and maybe they will ask you to do something again.
    • Will the money be used to pay damaged businesses? Fines are usually consumed by the government.
    • ...???...Profit.
    • Something like -- Linux -- comes with a lot of stuff if you buy one of those distros. And the price...undercutting. Is microsoft that far from having any competition -- that they dont have to worry? They dont need to create a value package?
    Yet, I have noticed that once people go into buisiness, they think it is ok to do anything:
    • Use abusive and anticompetitive buisiness practices. It never loses its shine -- does it?
    • Reduce the quality of coworkers lives -- because you can and have a higher position -- some imposed form of hierarchical superiority.
    • Dump toxic waste into the environment.
    • Knowingly sell drugs that will kill or impair the health of those that take them, and refuse to disclose information concerning these facts.
    • Use unsafe food processing practices that will sicken those that eat it or will cause a recall that will destroy valuable resouces.
    • Produce products that cause more pollution, waste and environmental destruction than comperable products and yet provide no greater benefit.
    • Endlessly produce new products, most of which arent any better than the previous.
    • Produce low quality product that will cost the your company and your customers money -- without any real reason.
    • ...
    1. Re:Monopolies and Governments by wingfinger · · Score: 1
      If you want to have a buisiness that sells an internet explorer or a media player -- it sucks -- it does. Nowdays I dont need people to make more media players !!
      • Windows Media Player
      • Creative Media MediaSource Player
      • Real Player
      • QuickTime
      • ITunes
      • The thing that came with your non-Ipod MP3 Player
      • DVD Player
      • ...
      I dont want everyone making a media player -- I have more than I need already. There are plenty I dont want to install already. How big a loss was it? What are the chances I would buy a media player?
  135. Software Corporation have Rights Granted by GOD!!? by viraltus · · Score: 1

    Interesting... really. By the way, you seem to know a lot about Natural and God's Rights... Is it death penalty a God or a Natural Right?

    --
    Dear /. CENSORS that set people's Karma to Neutral when you disagree with them: FUCK YOU!!
  136. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 0

    "Too bad that your prejudice has kept you from keeping track of recent developments. This criticism has been levelled at the EU for a long time and was to an extent justified, but guess what? They have actually done something about it. The European Parliament, which is directly elected and no longer as weak as it used to be, has received new powers with every treaty revision since 1992 and plays an integral role in EU law-making. Meetings of the Council of Ministers are not secret, as you can see on its website, which states: "All Council deliberations under the co-decision procedure are open to the public."

    Firstly, some of the above, SOME, is true.
    In this article, the dumb people like you who have been sold on this bullshit can read to actually learn about the crap they attempt to stir. Out of the EU, the Parliament remains the weakest part of the Executive. And yes, The Commission does not even have to use Co-Decision making, Nor do the Council of Ministers, WHO still hold meetings in secret, a fact you simply bar faced lied about.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_procedure

    "The Council's first deliberations on legislative acts other than those adopted by co-decision are open to the public. The Council regularly holds public debates on important issues affecting the interests of the Union and its citizens, as well as policy debates on the Council's programmes." FYI, the co-decision procedure is the most commonly used procedure in EU legislation."

    Commission and Council acting alone

    Under this procedure the Council can adopt laws proposed by the Commission without requiring the opinion of Parliament. The procedure can be used for particular parts of the freedom of movement of capital (Article 57) and the Common Commercial Policy (Title IX).

    [edit] Commission acting alone

    Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of EU laws are not dictates from the Commission. However the Commission does have the ability to adopt legislation without consulting or obtaining the consent of anyone. The Commission can adopt laws on its own initiative concerning monopolies and concessions granted to companies by Member States (Article 86(3)) and concerning the right of workers to remain in a Member State after having been employed there (Article 39(3)(d)). Two directives have been adopted using this procedure: one on transparency between Member States and companies[16] and another on competition in the telecommunications sector. [17]

    "Please explain first who you mean by "Europe" and who exactly is being "arrogant". Is it Britain, Germany, Russia, France, Greece, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Sweden? Does every single one of this country have a "fine tradition to be able to ignore history and repeat past mistakes"? Last time I checked, Germans are still making up for the crimes of the nazis and not exactly preparing a second Holocaust."

    You need me to explain to you what Europe is? My my, you're struggling. Did you learn to count? Perhaps you can explain away the 13 years where your fabled bastion of democracy, the EP passed 13 failed audits year after year. Don't bother.

    "The Scandinavians no longer send out marauding bands of pirates to rob frightened people in coastal places."

    No, In 1997 widespread attention was given to the fact that Sweden once operated a strong sterilization program, which was active primarily from the late 1930s until the mid 1950s. The legislation was enacted in 1934 and was formally abolished in 1976. A government inquiry published in 2000 estimated that 21,000 were forcibly sterilized, 6,000 were coerced into a 'voluntary' sterilization while the nature of a further 4,000 cases could not be determined.[19] The Swedish state subsequently paid out damages to the victims.

    The program was meant primarily to prevent mental illness and disease. However, as in Canada and the US, racial politics also became involved, as there was a strong

    --
    We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
  137. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 1

    "Ha you're from the UK even better. The state which is currently vigorously working on making 1984 a reality. Now there's someone in a glass house throwing stones. Now I actually do agree with some of your points, but you'd be a lot more credible if you wouldn't come across as one of those typical (usually US-based) EU bashers who don't know what they are talking about. And btw, talking about the EU birthday party as being an exceptional propaganda scheme, that's just ridiculous. Sure it is propaganda, but how's that different to the amount to the US July 4th celebrations, the French Bastille day celebrations, or the amount of money spent on the British monarchy, which is let's face it mainly a big propaganda operatus as well."

    Yes, I am from the UK, the same UK that now goes into secret meetings where there is no accountability and attempts to export their version of 1984 EU wide. Just remember, while you are busy laughing at me, the people I suffer under_are_building_the EU.

    Why do you think things like fingerprinting all children is happening? Its not an accident. Please pull your head out of your ass.

    --
    We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
  138. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 1

    "Maybe you could actually supply some facts to back your claims up? or are you just trolling. BTW according to the Reporters sans frontieres Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2007 (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025) almost every EU country ranks in front of the US. Ah but right it rather believe some slashdot troll then one of the most respected freedom of the press monitoring groups in the world."

    http://englandexpects.blogspot.com/2008/02/eu-journalist-or-propagandist.html
    That must be why the IFJ is having to write letters to head off EU efforts to control the press.
    Did the www.rsf.org people place the illegal arrest of Hans Martin Tillack under Belgium where there is not even source privilage or under the EU who sanctioned it.

    Oddly enough, seeing how many people here regard the EU as a state, its fun that its not even listed here. Which means its not being monitored.

    "BTW I'm getting fcking fingerprinted every time I enter the US, so don't give me those stupid finger printing examples."

    We are not talking about the butt of all Slashdot hatred here are we Mister Wizard, we are talking about the supposedly democratic, morally superior, open, transparent, better than the US EU, truth hurts. What exactly is it you deem the children have done to have the state finger printing them? They are not entering the United States, they only left their parents for a few hours.

    --
    We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
  139. I looked it up by l-ascorbic · · Score: 1

    I looked up "monolopy" and "monolopist", but can't find it. Which dictionary did you look in?

  140. Re:Ha ha ha ha... by spun · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah, THAT was what I was saying, boy, you sure nailed that one. Or rather, you did not. How about this, greater and lesser evil both exist, and we shouldn't confuse the two any more than we should ignore either one. Whoah, can you wrap your mind around that? I know, its complicated...

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  141. Regulate the connectivity - not the content. by zerofoo · · Score: 1

    How many ISP choices do you have at your location? What drives your ISP of choice to provide good service at a good price?

    Most residential users of data services in the US have a choice of one or two providers. Do you think unregulated monopolies or duopolies have an incentive to provide good service at a reasonable price?

    Step back one minute and ask yourself the following questions: Do you believe that good quality, reasonably priced, data services are essential to our nation's economy and well being? Do you think accessibility to those services will help to keep our nation growing and competitive with other industrialized nations?

    If the answer is yes, then you NEED to have government regulation for those services. Businesses exist to make profit, not to provide essential services at reasonable cost. Roads, power generation, and voice communications are essential to the prosperity of our nation. I argue that high-speed data service, and healthcare are equally important - and therefore merit government regulation.

    There is plenty of unregulated stuff for businesses to make obscene profits. The really important stuff needs to be regulated.

    -ted

    1. Re:Regulate the connectivity - not the content. by homer_s · · Score: 1

      Businesses exist to make profit, not to provide essential services at reasonable cost.

      This disproves your theory. If you read the entire article, you will also see that the incumbent players *want* government regulation. This is so that they can erect barriers and keep newcomers away.

  142. Re:1.3 billion ~= nothing, not to stock holders by stonewolf · · Score: 1

    I can see how my use of terms such as "fascist" could trigger your bullshit detector. I should be more careful about using loaded words. In this case I use it in the technical sense. IMHO the current administration has behaved and has attitudes that are sufficiently like those of the classic fascists from the 1930s and beyond to justify the use of the term.

    My comment about 10 years, not 10 months is there simply because legal actions work out over decades. In the anti trust case against IBM the trial lasted for 10 years. In the case of AT&T court supervision lasted for ~60 years. Legal battles, even a legal shit storm, play out over years, not months.

    For the rest I believe you are either over reacting or have little understanding of how legal proceedings play out. I made no doomsday claim. The world is not going to end over this, MS is just not that important. Nor did I claim the existence of any sort of a conspiracy. Go read the platform of the Republican party and look at its historic behavior on behalf of big business. Then look at the public record of how much money various MS related individuals and organizations donated to both parties in the 2000 election cycle. Then go look at the documented cases of MS astroturfing to try to affect the actions of the DOJ. Everything I said is based on historic facts that are documented where you can look them up if you chose to. There is no claim of conspiracy when you accuse the Republican party of following its own stated aims. Nor is there any claim of conspiracy when you are referring to documented behavior.

    The rest of what you said shows the power of MS branding but isn't supported by the facts. MS is a successful company with a yearly income of $44 billion which places it at 50th place in the US Fortune 500 and 139th globally. On the other hand IBM is 16th on the US Fortune 500 with a yearly income of $91 billion and 42nd globally. IBM is more than twice the size of MS. The two companies do not seem to directly compete in any area that I can identify. In fact IBM was badly burned when they tried to cooperate with MS. Look up the history of OS/2.

    As far as MS's portfolio of products goes, well you consider it huge, OK, I have no trouble with that. It doesn't seem huge to me. As far as the inability of other companies to compete, well you are correct there and MS has been convicted repeatedly of using illegal means to prevent other companies from competing. That is the whole point of what is going on. To make the market work there can not be any artificial barriers to competition. MS has been found to have created artificial barriers and used them to prevent other companies from competing. That is why they are being fined. I suppose you do not believe that what they have done is unreasonable. Well, I do and so do the governments of the US and the EU.

    BTW, mentioning documented illegal behavior is not *bashing*. Calling a convicted criminal a criminal is a statement of fact, not an opinion.

    Stonewolf

  143. Understanding was ABSOLUTELY NOT the issue by 5n3ak3rp1mp · · Score: 1

    Oh no, there was complete understanding of the issue, alright. In fact the judge understood so thoroughly how reprehensible things were, that he could not help but voice his opinion like a dumbass, ruining the entire case.

    Ever hear of a criminal who got off because he was so clearly criminal that the judge couldn't bite his tongue? Well here is one.

  144. Somalia's Government by zerofoo · · Score: 1

    Are you suggesting that we run our Government like Somalia runs theirs?

    Apples and oranges my friend.

    Good government regulation ensures that all players in a given sector play by the same rules (i.e. not killing your workers, not ripping off your customers....etc). If you need to break the rules to play in a given market, then you probably shouldn't be in the business. Some barriers to entry are a good thing, if those barriers prevent damage to society as a whole.

    Banking is a good example. Sure, there are lots of regulations and many regulatory bodies that need to be satisfied, but the end result is people, more or less, have faith that money deposited in banks will be there when they need it. Without those regulatory bodies, banks would be going out of business and stealing the money from the customers.

    It has happened in the past.

    If you need to break the rules to play in a given market, then you probably shouldn't be in the business. Some barriers to entry are a good thing, if those barriers prevent damage to society as a whole.

    -ted

    1. Re:Somalia's Government by homer_s · · Score: 1

      You said that businesses without govt regulation will not provide essential services for a reasonable cost. I gave you a link that proves otherwise. You respond with a lot of hand waving.

      Well, I tried.

  145. depends on your time frame, but mainly goes up by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    The dollar had a huge run-up in value versus European currencies from about 1950 to the mid 1990s. It's now lost some of those gains, but is still higher than its historical values.

    For example, today's "low" U.S. dollar is worth about 0.50 British pounds. In 1980, it was worth... around 0.45 British pounds. So it's up 10% on what it was in 1980. True, that's not as good as being up 50% on its 1980 value, which at its peak it was, but it's still better than if you had kept your money in pounds.

    1. Re:depends on your time frame, but mainly goes up by Teun · · Score: 1

      But very few Europeans keep their money in British Pounds.
      The British Pound is like the former Empire, a relic.
      It is kept alive due to an ill educated population failing to see the benefits of mass that the Euro brings.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  146. Political campaigning needs less money. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    In the UK for example, parties can't buy advertisement in mass media.

    The consequence? Lobby groups are immensely weaker than in the US because they can't "buy" the attention of politicians.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  147. Linux was were? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    You jest surely.

    Linux began to be considered a serious server OS just a few years ago (I would say 1999 or 2000).

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  148. What a load of nonsense. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    These fines are used to reduce the EU's budget, which means member countries have to pay less for the running of the EU. How each country uses that is up to them, but you make it sound like the EU bureaucrats are pocketing this money, which simply is false.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  149. In which alternate universe do you live? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    In places where the rule of law prevales, any legal entity what is found to be breaking the law has to assume the consequences of its acts.

    In the case of corporations if they are fined, they have to pay the fine.

    It is not a matter of choice. If they don't the scandal would be mayuscule and you would see people in shackles being thrown in jail, bnak accounts forzen and assets confiscated.

    How somebody can suggest this scenario is completely baffling.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  150. So? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Courts can size assets of a criminal (corporation, person whatever) that is not complying with the law.

    Copyrights are one of such assets, and they can be seized if necessary.

    Honestly guys, some of you you can't put 2 + 2 together....

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  151. Mature vs emerging markets. by zerofoo · · Score: 1

    Sure there are a lot of providers for now - their telecom market is in its infancy.

    Somalia was the last African country to access the Internet in August 2000, with only 57 web sites known as of 2003.[37] Internet usage in Somalia grew 44,900% from 2000 to 2007, registering the highest growth rate in Africa.

    Companies providing telecommunication services are:

            * Golis Telecom Somalia
            * Somali Telecom Group
            * Galkom
            * Global Internet Company
            * Hormuud
            * Telcom
            * NationLink Telecom
            * Netco
            * Somafone


    Somalia's current telecom market is not even a decade old!

    Competition is great thing when you can get it. If Somalia's telecom market matures and grows, consolidation will follow. Give this telecom market 50 years to mature. Eventually after the consolidation happens, prices will rise, and service will decline.

    It always happens.

    In mature markets - like the US. There are very large incumbent telecoms. These companies, even after being broken up (remember Ma Bell) reconsolidated due to lack of regulatory control. Eventually, as young markets mature, monopolies and duopolies emerge - for the sole reason of controlling those markets.

    Why would Somalia be any different from any other telecom market? Are their telecom companies run by altruistic people that do not know greed, power, and wealth?

    -ted