Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft To Appeal EU Decision

Posted by Zonk on Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:05 AM
from the fighting-the-old-country dept.
Microsoft Government Politics
An anonymous reader writes "News.com has an article on Microsoft's upcoming appeal of the EU antitrust decision. Their argument is essentially that they shouldn't be penalized for becoming successful in a marketplace." From the article: "Microsoft relies on the fact that its communication protocols are technologically innovative and are covered by intellectual-property rights ... [the company] had designed its Windows server operating systems from the outset to interoperate with non-Microsoft server operating systems"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] EU Says Microsoft Still Not Compliant 339 comments
what about writes "News.com is reporting that the European Union still doesn't consider Microsoft in compliance with its anti-trust ruling." From the article: "Should the Commission issue a final decision against Microsoft, the software giant would face a retroactive fine of $2.36 million a day for the period between Dec. 15 and the date the final decision is issued. The Commission may then take additional steps to extend the daily fine until Microsoft complies with the order. The Commission's letter is just the latest action it has taken in the closely watched antitrust case. "
[+] Microsoft Makes EU Dispute Docs Public 227 comments
mjdroner writes "ZDNet is reporting that Microsoft has posted confidential documents used in its defense of European Commission antitrust practices related to server software. Explaining the posting of the documents, which the EC considers confidential, a Microsoft rep said, 'Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels.'"
[+] Microsoft turns to U.S. for EU Antitrust Help 333 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The NY times reports that Microsoft has asked U.S. goverment officials to intervene on their behalf in the EU antitrust case. The US (through diplomatic channels) has asked the court to be 'fair'." From the article: "Microsoft has complained frequently in recent months that it has been denied the right to a fair defense in the continuing antitrust case with the European Commission. It has also accused the commission of collaborating with its rivals in the software industry and denying it access to what it contends are vital documents it needs to prepare its defense. A memo written by unidentified government officials in Washington stated that Microsoft's complaints raise 'substantial concerns' about the way Microsoft is being treated, according to a person close to the commission who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the memo."
[+] EU Prepared to Fine Microsoft $2.5 Million Per Day 659 comments
Lord_Slepnir writes "The European Union is unsatisfied with Microsoft's compliance with their anti-trust compliance from 2004, and is preparing to fine them 2 million Euros ($2.5m US) per day until they comply. Under that ruling, Microsoft must open up parts of their operating system to competitors, and change how they bundle Media Player." From the article: "On Monday, Microsoft said it had begun to provide the information Brussels had demanded, but the Commission has signaled the company acted too late. In December, Brussels informed the software giant that it had failed to comply with the original ruling it issued in March 2004."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Microsoft To Appeal EU Decision 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Why the complaints? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by liliafan (454080) * on Tuesday April 11 2006, @11:07AM (#15106328) Homepage
    "Microsoft had designed its Windows server operating systems from the outset to interoperate with non-Microsoft server operating systems,"


    If this is the case why are they complaining so much about documenting the protocols that would allow non-Microsoft software to interoperate?

    A lot of people don't agree with the EU anti-trust, personally I think the EU is succeeding where the US anti-trust cases failed, they are actually punishing M$, hopefully, Microsoft will learn a lesson this time around.....I doubt they will though.
    • I personally think the EU case is a well-deserved and long overdue slap. We saw the overall effect of the Anti-competitive ruling- which, for all intents and purposes, accomplished very little. The EU's requirement should have been part of the US settlement from the very outset.

      In my opinion, you can't dominate a marketplace and expect to do bsuiness as you please...it's just too risky - especially when you consider that the medium in question is a huge part of the technical infrastructure.

    • Re:Why the complaints? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @11:34AM (#15106541) Homepage
      The interaction only goes one way. And strangely, few if any complaints about that from the vendors whose territory they trample.

      Seems all of their own interoperability is for the purpose of migration [to Windows], not for peaceful cohabitation in a mixed computing environment.
    • I just can't believe they appealed...
    • It is well known that these suits don't have any effct on MS business practices. From a money standpoint, it is almost impossible to fine them enough that it is worth their while to comply. The lawsuits take years, at which time the tech will become obsolete, all the while there is an obscene amount of cash coming in that can pay any lawsuits that have been brought forth in the past. I don't have the answer to stopping shady business practices like this but realize that it hurts the creativity of companies

    • Succession of arguments: (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @12:11PM (#15106823) Homepage
      Not sure if these are in strictly chronological order, but:

      1. We shouldn't have to give out documentation because we're not a monopoly
      2. We can't give out documentation.
      3. We gave out source code; that's the same as documentation
      4. We can't figure out what exactly it is you want us to give out.
      5. We don't need to give out documentation; the stuff is already interoperable enough.
      6. We shouldn't have to give out documentation 'cause that would mean giving away our intellectual property.

      This would be hilarious if it weren't so damaging to the marketplace. Could someone point me to the part of the EU's decision where Microsoft is required to sign over its intellectual property to someone?

      • Re:Why the complaints? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sassinak (150422) <sassinak@@@sdf...lonestar...org> on Tuesday April 11 2006, @12:39PM (#15107061) Homepage
        Because, as you just pointed out... Ford doesn't own the entire market. If you change to Chevy, or GM, or any other vehicle, you loose nothing. (Except for any backlog of parts and knowledge specific to the product that you may have). And that is a cost that you will have to decide is worth it or not.

        Ford does not (and can't really) use its leverage to make the auto parts manufactures to produce only parts for them and not anyone else.

        Ford can't basically tell you... "Drive us, or you will have to walk".

        If company A switches from windows to something else, (assuming they will unhook the leash to do so... stockholm syndrome comes to mind.), depending on their industry, they may not be able to function... this is not entirely due to the classic arguement of "no applications"..

        The long and short of it is that Micro$haft is being "singled out" (as you say) because of what they have done in the industry, not their size. You don't cage the gorilla for being 500lbs; but if he smacks everything that comes within 50 feet to death, and prevents any little gorillas from being born... I'm pretty sure you want a wall between him and you.
          • If you look at the histroical prograssion of the situation, yes.

            You see, microsoft didn't care one bit about multimedia or even the internet at one time. All they wanted to do was make it so you bought thier product because you used it at work. Windows 95 didn't even have a "media player" or web browser at first.

            Alot of third party companies came along and said lets do this and fill this niche in the market(for whatever reason). This is either internet, multimedia or whatever else. Microsoft vreated an addo

  • Sure, George (Score:5, Informative)

    by gowen (141411) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 11 2006, @11:09AM (#15106348) Homepage Journal
    had designed its Windows server operating systems from the outset to interoperate with non-Microsoft server operating systems
    Sure. That's why SMB is so appallingly documented that the only way to re-implement it is by packet sniffing Windows clients. And why their Kerberos implementation [networkworld.com] was deliberately incompatible with everyone elses, and with the incompatibility protected as a trade secret.
    • Screwing with those who wish to communicate with your operating system via your protocols is all part of INNOVATION! Abusing your monopoly position is all part of INNOVATION! Poor long suffering Microsoft, the Jesus of Software, so maligned by so many.
      • crewing with those who wish to communicate with your operating system via your protocols is all part of INNOVATION! Abusing your monopoly position is all part of INNOVATION! Poor long suffering Microsoft, the Jesus of Software, so maligned by so many.

        I don't think your, Jesus analogy will hold because Jesus' disciples were men of peace and unlike some of the people at Microsoft they would never have thrown chairs at the faithful.
          • "And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said unto them, 'It is written, "My house shall be called a house of prayer"; but you make it a den of robbers.'

            Yeah, I think Jesus went Balmer on them!

            I'm going to FUCKING KILL the money-changers!

  • Design and documentation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by truthsearch (249536) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @11:16AM (#15106412) Homepage Journal
    Sure, they were designed to interoperate. They just weren't documented. Or not documented well.

    Anything can interoperate with any other as long as the protocols are documented and those documents are made available.

    • Re:Design and documentation (Score:4, Insightful)

      by k12linux (627320) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @11:50AM (#15106663)
      Right. Anyone can communicate in a foreign langauge as long as they take the time to learn it too. Of course if those who speak it refuse to teach someone who doesn't then good luck trying to master the langauge. The best MS outsiders can do is listen in on the conversation, try to pick out the right words and see what happens when you repeat some of them back to someone else. (With any luck you make no major mistakes and the person you are talking to doesn't become enraged and kill you.)

      MS's SMB/CIFS implementation is really not different. They refuse to teach anyone else the protocols (language) and what progress there has been was due to packet sniffing (listening in) and repeating things back that seem right to see what happens.

  • Frankly... (Score:5, Funny)

    by dex22 (239643) <plasticuser.gmail@com> on Tuesday April 11 2006, @11:17AM (#15106422) Homepage
    I can't imagine Microsoft appealing to anyone... ;)

  • Msg to those in EU (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11 2006, @11:17AM (#15106424)
    Write to your reps in the EU to encourage them to keep up the pressure. Don't let it drop like it did in the US. Those of us across the pond from you are still shocked that the case was won by the US DOJ after spending millions of $US then rendered ineffective by politics.


    We need open standards. We need interoperability. However, closed standards, proprietary formats, and DRM all serve to preserve marketshare by those owning the technology and serve to lock out any competition. Bid on a project and you can propose vendor A version 2000 or vendor A version 2003 or vendora A version XP.... Now that is competition, right?

    • More than that, maybe they should also hear from us "Americans" who were also disappointed with the recently purchased decision that allowed Microsoft to escape any and all punishment. Give me some addresses (email would be easy... hope they'll actually read it) and I'll do some writing too.

  • Wrong argument (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11 2006, @11:22AM (#15106464)
    Their argument is essentially that they shouldn't be penalized for becoming successful in a marketplace

    Shouldn't that be "penalised" not "penalized" as I'm pretty sure they use English rather than American in the EU, certainally we do in my part :-)

    Anyhow it's a deliberatley misleading argument - they're not being penalised for being successful, they're being penalised for BREAKING THE LAW. They really need to understand that the EU sees them as CRIMINALS and not contributing members of society. If they don't want to be treated as criminals then they shouldn't willfully and deliberatley break the law.

    They may be attempting to appeal that decision, however for the fact remains that it's not their success that has them up in the dock, it's their illegal behaviour.

    Specifically for abusing their monopoly position to the detriment of the market - adminttedly the monoply does show they were successful but that entire argument is a fallacy.
    • They really need to understand that the EU sees them as CRIMINALS and not contributing members of society.

      You are entirely correct. Microsoft are criminals. I don't think there is any doubt over this.

      The only fundemental difference is who's getting the share the loot

    • Re:Wrong argument (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bogtha (906264) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @11:56AM (#15106712)

      Anyhow it's a deliberatley misleading argument - they're not being penalised for being successful, they're being penalised for BREAKING THE LAW.

      I wish we could punish people who spout insincere rhetoric like this by treating them as if they were being honest.

      Microsoft: "We shouldn't be punished for becoming successful."
      EU: "Okay, we agree to those terms, appeal over."
      [A month goes by.]
      Microsoft: "Why are you forcing us to comply with the original judgement?"
      EU: "Why wouldn't we? That wasn't a punishment for being successful, that was a punishment for being anticompetitive."
      Microsoft: "We appeal!"
      EU: "You already had your appeal, we agreed to your terms, remember?"

    • Re:Wrong argument (Score:4, Funny)

      by ccady (569355) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @12:07PM (#15106793) Journal

      Shouldn't that be "penalised" not "penalized" as I'm pretty sure they use English rather than American in the EU, certainally we do in my part :-)

      Anyhow it's a deliberatley misleading argument ... they shouldn't willfully and deliberatley break the law.

      Is deliberatley an English word, too? No wonder us 'merican hicks cain't git it right.

      [Just pulling your leg. Not disturbed, just amused.]

  • What IP rights ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by alexhs (877055) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @11:27AM (#15106487) Homepage Journal
    the Commission's demands threaten Microsoft's intellectual-property rights.

    What intellectual property rights ? The EU Commision didn't ask for the source code (copyright), and software patents have no legal value in Europe...

    • Re:What IP rights ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by truthsearch (249536) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @11:47AM (#15106646) Homepage Journal
      Communications protocols. MS claims it's their IP and they don't have to share it (as in publicly document it). But they also claim they interoperate. They think no one is smart enough to see the contradiction.
      • Don't let them get away with such a crass generalisation. A protocol can not be patented because it is not an invention; it can not be copyrighted because it is not a creative or artistic work; it can not be a trade secret because it is disclosed when software implementing the protocol is given to someone else; and it is impossible to trademark because it's not a ... trade mark.

        Putting aside the French attempt to create a new form of Intellectual property (the DRM right), is there any other form of IP I hav

  • Ah, I see! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gowen (141411) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 11 2006, @11:27AM (#15106492) Homepage Journal
    [the company] had designed its Windows server operating systems from the outset to interoperate with non-Microsoft server operating systems
    Its non-Microsoft client operating systems that they have the problem with. You can have your slice of server space, but if your alternative OS's try and pick up market share for desktop computers, then they'll do everything they can to stop you.

    • Its non-Microsoft client operating systems that they have the problem with.

      Not really. MS has not been judged as having a monopoly in the server space (rightfully so, IMHO). It has been judged as having a monopoly in the desktop space. MS can tie its servers to anything it wants, except its desktop. Because it has a monopoly on the desktop it is illegal for them to tie anything to the desktop via bundling or secret protocols, because it gives them an unfair advantage in the new market (in this case serve

  • When will Microsoft be defeated by the EU?

    * From 1 to 6 months
    * From 6 months to a year
    * From 1 to 2 years
    * From 2 and 5 years
    * More than 5 years
    * When CowboyNeal says it will

    Place your bets, gentlemen. Place your bets.
  • If Microsoft can show anything that is both genuinely "innovative" (and using the BSD TCP/IP stack is not innovative) and compatible with non-Windows systems (excluding Samba, as that was reverse-engineered), I'd say the EU should be willing to listen and should perhaps reduce or suspend the fine. (So that regular Slashdottians don't suffer a heart attack, I don't consider this remotely likely.)


    If Microsoft is appealing on flagarantly fraudulant grounds that lie somewhere between making false statements to a court of law, deceptive advertising, and wilful abuse of the appeals system, then the EU should seriously examine if the law would allow them to increase the fine. Doubling it would seem suitable.


    This needs to be settled, once and for all, in a way that is fair but decisive.

  • Microsoft's EU Dilemma (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dueyfinster (872608) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @11:49AM (#15106659) Homepage
    Microsoft uses Ireland as a base to filter billions of dollars every year (Through a wholly owned obscure subsidiary), through a solicitors office in Dublin. That office controls all license revenue from Asia, Europe and Africa. On average they contribute $50 per person per year to Irish economy, with our low corporation tax rates. The EU has FULL legislative power over this, what represents a huge chunk, if not more than 50% of MSFT's business, so unlike South Korea, Microsoft could not just leave (like they threatened to move to Canada), as most of their Intellectual Property rights are based here in Ireland. The E.U. probably holds the most power over Microsoft then any legislator in the world, its all whether they are bman enough to make Microsoft pay for their crimes.....
  • Microsoft relies on the fact that its communication protocols are technologically innovative

    That really is fantastic (in both senses). Microsoft have seriously outdone themselves with that one. An upside-down toilet would be technologically innovative and about as much use as one of their communication protocols. At least it made me smile.

  • Read the article - "designed its Windows server operating systems from the outset to interoperate with non-Microsoft server operating systems"

    This is exactly the problem. They said:

    MS Windows server ===== works with ======> non-MS server OS

    They did not say

    non-MS OS ====== works with ========> MS Windows server

    ...and that is exactly the problem that they are being sued for

    Don't be fooled by the doublespeak.

    • Re:market success (Score:5, Funny)

      by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @11:37AM (#15106577) Homepage
      EXACTLY. They are "successful" at the expense of the public which makes them harmful.

      Cockroaches are "successful." Rats are "successful." Microsoft is "successful."

      (wasn't that clever of me to associate cockroaches and rats with microsoft?)
    • What objective standard do you intend to use? How much is 'too much'? Who gets to decide?

      The idea is you don't punish the good for being the good. That's like saying, why don't we ban the New York Yankees from baseball because they have the most talented players? I think they're hitting way more home runs than they need to.

      If I owned a farm and had a bumper crop of corn one year, should I be penalized for being successful? What if I have ten farmers, all working cooperatively? What is the demarcation line
      • If I owned a farm and had a bumper crop of corn one year, should I be penalized for being successful? What if I have ten farmers, all working cooperatively? What is the demarcation line for government or anyone to step in because 'success' has been too great.

        The government might well decide to have a look at your business practices... If you owned a farm and attempted to buy out, intimidate, and crush your rival farmers, if you then locked down the distribution market with illegal contracts to make it very
      • But Microsoft are NOT in trouble for being successful - they're in trouble for HOW they achieved their success. Remember, they're a convicted illegal monopolist. They have used market domination in one field to unfairly leverage dominance in others, at the total expense of innovation and consumer benefit.
        • everybody becomes richer under capitalism. The rich just slightly faster. If you doubt that, look at the kind of shit happening where the state rules supreme.
    • Just who decides when a company is successful enough? You? People just like you? And, where is the incentive for starting a company if some group can say "You're too successful, we're bringing you down!" ? I'm all for ethical business practices, but placing artificial constraints on the success of a business strikes me as extreme-left punishment for simply being the alpha-business in a particular industry.
      • How many Microsoft fanbois are going to use the strawman argument that Microsoft is being "punished for being successful?"

        They're not being punished for being successful. The EU didn't say, "Hmm, Microsoft is being successful, let's fine them for that."

        The issue is the lack of interoperability documentation with their monopoly platform, which prevents competition from Microsoft's own server products, furthering Microsoft's monopoly. There are laws against that because it's the antithesis of a free market.

    • Re:market success (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JustASlashDotGuy (905444) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @12:11PM (#15106820)

      I think they're making way more money than they need to. Just like gas companies. Being successful
      doesn't make it right.

      Comments like yours are the ones that the 'other side' love. Someone who doesn't have the slightest
      grasp as to what is going on and makes comments that lead everyone else to believe that you don't have
      a grasp on capitalism. The simple fact that a company makes a lot of money doesn't make them bad or
      mean that restrictions should be placed on them. The company makes what the market permits, supply
      and demand. It's not up to you to say 'they are making too much money', there's no such thing as too
      much money (legally).

      You're probably one of those people that think the rich should be taxed to death for the simple fact
      that they have more money. "You make 1 million dollars a year.. I think we should tax you to death so
      you only take on 50k a year!... that is fair in my warped concept of fair".

      * Now, to be fair... you may very well have grasp on the facts, in fact I hope you do. Your comment
      alone is what I find rediculous, however you'll prolly get mod'd up as 'insightful' based on this
      crowd.
    • No kidding. The first thing to pop into my head was this...

      "This just in, convicted murderer on death row to appeal sentence."

      of COURSE they're going to appeal - when you have that much money for lawyers why wouldn't you?
    • Not just Microsoft. Change the subject and pretend it was the subject all along. I've had a lot of conversations where I've had this done to me. Then there's the whole "Wondering why you're so upset for" bit, done here as "We shouldn't be penalized for being successful".

    • Re:Yeah. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MSFanBoi2 (930319) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @11:51AM (#15106674)
      The best thing is both blaster and slammer had fixes released well before the worms hit.

      It's most assuredly not Microsoft's fault that people don't patch.

      And any fool who says Linux or MacOS X don't need to be patched, are just that, fools.

      • Re:Yeah. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Firehed (942385)

        And any fool who says Linux or MacOS X don't need to be patched, are just that, fools.

        Thankfully, most of the userbase for those OSs aren't as foolish as your typical Windows one. If Joe Consumer stopped being an idiot on the computer, viruses would just die off because there's be no point (not that most viruses have a point to start). My computer's behind a hardware firewall (read: cheap router) and I don't even view any emails sent by morons, and it works infinitely better than most people who are load

      • Re:Yeah. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 (641858) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:00PM (#15107252) Homepage Journal
        It's most assuredly not Microsoft's fault that people don't patch

        It is, at least partially. Microsoft had (have?) a habit of releasing 'new features' with security patches. This meant that the security patches needed careful testing before deployment, since the new features often came free with new bugs that could break existing software. For most other operating systems, the security updates are just that; security updates. If you install a security update for OS X/FreeBSD/whatever, the only things that it should break are programs that made use of the insecurity that is fixed (and you probably want these to break, rather than being exploited, anyway). On Windows, it can be a game of Russian Roulette to patch a running server.

    • I hate that the EU has made Microsoft ship separate versions of Windows: ones without Media Player or IE. But what if I use WMA and IE? These are important pieces of software that every computer needs. Every PC needs to be able to go online, and play media files.

      It is very disturbing that you think that the need to browse the web and play media files by definition means a computer must have IE and WMP.

      It's not about a company shipping Windows without IE or WMP. It's about a computer company being able to

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.