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."
That's 1.337.
Ryan - http://www.thecosmotron.com/
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.
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?
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."
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.
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".
its about time somebody did something about the convicted criminals at microsoft even if it is never going to be enforced...
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.
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
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...
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
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Do you guys think it will be anything that will help with development of WINE?
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
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.
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.
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
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
...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.
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.
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.
Best Slashdot Co
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!
It'd be cool to see it given to fund OSS projects or something like that.
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
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?
please please pleeeeeaase... take windows away from those bad europeans! give them a lesson! pleeeeeease.
Dear
Some of the EU's decisions on competition
EU's Press release on this specific matter
And a FAQ of why MS is getting fined when they say they have complied in 2007
...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.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
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."
1337 j00d1c14ry
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.
MS would probably want to pay up quick, before the dollar devalues even further...
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
Interesting... Maybe they should fine MS another few billion and we might have lower taxes next year :) j/k
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."
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."
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!
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...
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
A pity the Germans tore down Spandau Prison; that would have been just the place.
Regards;
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 mean waterboarding?
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
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
Whatever Bill.
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."
...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();
I see this fine as compensation for all those lost hours. Where can I claim my part?
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.
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.
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.
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, waitIt 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.
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.
Looks like the EU has found a new revenue model :)
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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
From what I remember it was more along the lines of OS, Office and Internet. The Bush DoJ canned the idea.
Which MS products are you talking about?
This is blinging
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.
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.
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?
Microsoft's response: "Just put it on our tab!"
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.
Mine, for example. :-)
you had me at #!
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."
Whooosh!
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
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.
What about Exchange Server?
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.
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.
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).
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/
definitely not Europe, I wish I could see that happen, that would make my day.
Dear
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/
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..."
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.
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
...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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
:-)), 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).
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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 :)
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).
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
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.
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
> 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.
"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
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
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!
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.
Collector's Edition
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.
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.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
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/
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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".
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...
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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?
"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."
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.
"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
"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
In real terms it's not much more than a slap on the wrist for a company like MS.
No sig today...
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.
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.
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.
You could always ask big pharma...
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Citation unavailable until November...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
I tried to resist. I really did.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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]
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.
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.
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
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:: There is no light at the end of a tunnel. There is a tunnel after a tunnel : Thom Y.
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
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..
The use of the name 'Windows' should also be prevented. Whichever branch that got the name would dominate again very quickly
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Air is just like fog, but it's not gray.
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.
- 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: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
"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
"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
I looked up "monolopy" and "monolopist", but can't find it. Which dictionary did you look in?
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.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
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
"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
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
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
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.
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
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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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