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."
Yeah, sure. They should slap them in the wrist like the US did instead.
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.
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.
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.
Crackin' Wise - Blogging about whatever we want
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
This can hardly be called as a blow to MSFT considering their revenue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft
Let's celebrate when the fine has been paid.
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.
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
Well, since the euro has only existed for 9 years, lowest ever == lowest in 9 years.
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."
Microsoft's net income was around $14 billion in 2007. Over fifteen months, this charge is only 7.6% of that. It's only around 2% of their gross revenue. It's basically just a little extra tax, from MS's perspective. No mistake, it's still a lot of money, but I wouldn't be surprised if they paid it happily and kept their little monopoly.
You don't really understand the scale of government, do you? I work for a small (tiny, miniscule, microscopic) government agency. We have maybe 50 or 80 employees. Our budget for next 5 years is in the hundreds of millions (US$). 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.
Oh - and those licenses, we don't need them: you copyrights are void.
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.
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.
I dont read
Is Apple a convicted monopolist ?
No, they're not are they but Microsoft is and that is what makes the situations different.
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.
Collector's Edition
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.
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.
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.
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 $51 billion, globally. The EU has the power of the police, government, military behind them which can seize MS's assets and if MS decides to pull out of EU they would leave billions in assets behind. If events reach that point, EU given the national security clauses in copyright conventions would simply suspend MS copyright in Europe while Europe moves to Linux/BSD/Solaris at a hugely accelerated pace. Given that the EU is the largest economy block in the world, everyone else would be forced to use those open technologies and MS would find itself with a pretty minimal market share in a few years.
Even Microsoft isn't this stupid to make a move anything like this.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
This is obviously a bad idea in terms of property rights, etc, and Euro-US relationship. But it will scar MS for life, since which govt would trust MS if they do that?
There is that point, and then there is the aftermath. A hurricane can kill thousands. The following unsanitary conditions can kill millions.
In the same way, M$ 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
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."
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...
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.
I long for the days where rights were granted to governent and not the other way around.
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?
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);
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
The EU should give the money to FOSS projects as an extra punishment :)
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?
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
"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."
"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
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
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.
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..