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."
Scratch that. If I RTFA, I would know that that the warning which told them about fining them 2m Euro everyday was actually in December 2005. It was in relation to failing to comply with the 2004 ruling, but the fine was only mentioned in Dec '05.
One thing the article didn't mention however is that the fine can be issued retrospectively, i.e: if they issue the fine today it would be back-payable to December '05!
Seriously, it seems that the entire history of antitrust action against MS in the US and Europe has been a colossal waste of time and effort. All it has done is show that governments don't really have the teeth to cut into Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. I originally thought the DOJ action was going to curb MS, but it didn't.
When push came to shove, the US government wasn't truly prepared to make one of the crown jewels of American business suffer in order to make it change its ways. The EU is likely unwilling to push too hard for fear of invoking the wrath of the US government, which is just further proof that if a business becomes big enough, it can only very rarely be constrained by government.
Market forces are doing a far better job of constraining Microsoft. Perhaps if Microsoft's competitors hadn't relied on antitrust lawsuits to save them, they might have fought MS more aggressively and effectively in the past. Apple learned its lesson. Sun (belatedly) learned its lesson. The lesson is that the government isn't going to help you fight Microsoft, so you have to figure out a way to do it yourself.
I don't think it's lack of teeth, it's lack of will.
In the US case, the justice department got a conviction against Microsoft. Then the Bush administration was sworn in, and the incoming DOJ whittled the punishment down into a "don't do it again, *wink* *wink*, *nudge* *nudge*."
In the European case, the EU is still finding its legs as an entity/pseudo-government. Any action they take against MS is going to be debated, re-debated, whined about, etc. They have the teeth, it's a question of whether they have the will to take a bite.
Seriously, it seems that the entire history of antitrust action against MS in the US and Europe has been a colossal waste of time and effort. All it has done is show that governments don't really have the teeth to cut into Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior
It's not that they don't have the teeth... it's that they don't have the BALLS! And sad to say, Europe is showing it has a helluva lot more balls than the US. Of course, this is mainly because lobbying is an industry of corruption here in the US. I'm honestly amazed that the EU hasn't been bought off yet or bribed into submission.
I'm the same way, not a fan at all, but, I do wonder at what point, what would prevent MS from basically thumbing their nose at EU, and saying fine, we'll just withdraw all new products from you market...and if things got worse, just plain stop supporting the products currently out there in EU.
I would not guess it would be good for business, but, if MS has that much cash they're sitting on, and still can do business with the rest of the world...what would stop them from pulling this, and using that to leverage the EU into getting off their ass about this?
Sure, while it would seriously promote alternate OSes in EU, could the EU stand to have the carpet pulled out from under them in this manner considering how entrenched MS is in the world of computing..?
I would not guess it would be good for business, but, if MS has that much cash they're sitting on, and still can do business with the rest of the world...what would stop them from pulling this, and using that to leverage the EU into getting off their ass about this?
A problem with this is that Europe is a big market for Microsoft. Then there's also the possibility other regions or countries can follow their lead. Brazil for instance has been getting into open source a lot recently and it's gaining in India as well. Take a look at MIT's Nicholas Negroponte and his $100 Laptop [pcmag.com], part of a program to put a laptop in every child's lap. Something like this can be liability as well. If Microsoft doesn't try to work with programs like this, they could pull the carpet out from MS's feet.
"Sure, while it would seriously promote alternate OSes in EU, could the EU stand to have the carpet pulled out from under them in this manner considering how entrenched MS is in the world of computing..?"
I agree that it would hurt with regard to new computer sales etc... however MS cannot stop existing installations from working. I also assume that should MS decide that they do not want to offer updates to existing software in the EU, while providing them for the rest of the world, that the EU would sanction "illegal" copies of said updates within the EU.
Also, and probably more importantly, if MS did this (I am gonna take my ball and go home!) do you think that would be soon forgotten in EU countries? At that point MS becomes more of an enemy to the EU computing world than simply an 800lb gorilla. I think that should MS follow through with pulling out of EU it will probably result in MS not ever being able to re-enter that market; not due to political/legal problems but because people would not forget the way they were shunned by MS while MS was trying to make a point. In other words, if MS pulls out of EU, they have to consider the consequences with one of the most likely being that they could never re-enter that market in a substantial way again.
Now before the MS apologists vent let me say a couple things. No, right now there is no equivilant replacement to MS. As a result, how long do you think it would be before either emulation (aka wine) was improved to the point of being transparent to the end user or how long before a lot of other software manufacturers start porting to Linux*? The EU has too many potential sales to ignore which most likely means that MS can no longer convince software houses to remain loyal to the MS world view of software.
*I say Linux because it is the most sensible alternative. OSX does not run on generic (aka non-Apple) i386 and there are too many machines in place already. The BSDs are behind Linux in compatibilty with hardware and the amount of software written for Linux. I cannot think of any other OS that even approaches the maturity of Linux at this point.
But showing that they were prepared to scupper their own customer base due to spite would stop ANY business that had continuity plans from EVER using Microsoft products again. Simply because you couldn't trust them. It would kill the company overnight. Pulling out of Europe would also mean anyone that does a lot of business with Europe (read China, India, and many other places that don't rely solely on the US) would need compatibility with Europe too.. Which means they'd be introduced to non-MS products. With Europe + rest of world (bar US, most likely) using non-MS products rather quickly, the US would soon find that to do business with the rest of the world, it'd have to be compliant with the non-MS standard that had arisen behind the world wide economy. Which would loosen the grip of MS in the US, eventually making it irrelevant. So, in other words, they could choose spite, and kill their whole company in a couple of years (while leaving a lot of pain in the wake for a short amount of time), or they can toe the line, open their API, and do what the EU asks, and then have to compete on innovation with the rest of the world. Which, with the brains in the MS research labs, I reckon they've got a good shot at doing. Like IBM, they'll be around for decades to come, but without the massive monopoly they have now. If I were running the company, I know which option I'd choose.
Sure they could do all that, but that would tell the governments in the rest of the world that Microsoft really can't be trusted. Governmnets in many parts of the world are allready leaning towards Open Source to make sure that they can stay in control of their information structure. Microsoft doing something like this would be the final proof that these governments were right.
Once governments leave the windows business, large government contractors and their subcontractors will follow. This would hurt Microsoft much more than it would hurt EU. To EU it would mean one or two years with a lot of hazzle, while applications was wineified, ported to e.g. Linux, or replaced with software running on MacOS-X, To Microsoft it would mean the end of their dominance on the desktop world wide. In turn that would also mean that they would lose their grip on hardware venders, nobody is prepared to lose a big market like Europe just to ship products that only runs windows.
So, we can be quite sure that Microsoft will either pay their fines, or comply. There is really nothing to worry about.
"It reminds me of a mob movie, you either pay their protection money (opening up the source code and unbundling media player) or bad things will happen to you (2.5 mill a day in fines)."
No one has asked that MS open *ANY* source code. Please do not spread such FUD; or are you astroturfing? The reason I ask is that this is the *exact* argument MS has been known to use.
No, it's the documentation of the interfaces and protocolls MS is supposed to publish (and keep up-to-date with further updates, of course), not the source code. Documentation, as somebody else pointed out, MS (hopefully) already has.
Now, the source code is the implementation of those protocolls. If MS manages to supply the market with the best implementation, MS will keep the market. If not, it will lose it (or at least some parts of it) to the competition.
On the other hand, if MS keeps their protocolls secret, changing them every now and then just so that the reverse engineering efforts of the competition get undermined, the quality of the implementation MS provides is largely of no importance, because there is no NEED for MS to improve it.
I am sure you see in which of the above two cases the consumer is a winner, and in which the consumer is just a silent cash-cow, forced to update from time to time, and with no chance to ever come out of being dependent on one (and only one) company.
Now again, what is your problem with the EU in this case?
You are way off here. Europe is not just a 'Big Market' for Microsoft.
If MS was to make 2 mill a day in EU, but fined 2.5 mill a day, it would be best to just move out, right?
Or do you think that the loss of support for all of Europe might have a mass effect on the world market? These days most corporations have large divisions in Europe, or interact with counterparts in europe. If EU was forced to switch to anything but MS, large parts of the outside world would also.
Not to mention, that if an entire continent showed it was capable of being productive without the juggernaught that MS is, the rest of the world would soon follow the example. And dont think that MS leaving EU would cause them to just callapse in onto themselves or something, just a big setback to start.
Of course, Microsoft knows thats not even an option, and it'll never happen.
What MS does not need right now, is for OSS/linux to flow into a market and be the main player. If Europe makes the leap to OSS, they will no doubt create loads of software companies. Some of these will be OSS, but I would guess that most will be closed. And most likely they will have no competition, but a HUGE market to sell to. At that time, the American companies will have no choice but to move into the Linux/OSS world. At that point, MS has lost not only a bit of business, but their monopoly. Game Over.
No, the part about 'if they comply right away' was supposed to end in the beginning of february iirc. They didn't, dragged some foot, released some gibbrish, and now they need to pay the daily fine imposed on them starting from the end of 2004 til now.
It's all a questions of respect. The US government barked, but when it came to biting, they didn't. As a result, MS does not and will probably not ever again have respect for them.
Apparently, someone in the EU has some soft skills and knows that at this stage it isn't about being right or wrong or fair or blablabla. If the EU doesn't bite after making so much noise about it, they'll have a hard time ever getting MS to comply with anything.
Keep in mind, that the US had a regime change between the bark and the bite. MS has not been able to find the right politician or political office to influence in the EU to make this go away.
In the US, under Clinton, there was an overwhemling victory against MS. When the judge could not keep his mouth shut and the case was up for retrial, under Bush, the government struck a sweetheart deal.
I, personally, did not see any problem with a judge calling a bunch of criminals, criminals, after he had seen all the evidence, but hey, what do I know, I live in the real world.
So they fine MS... assuming MS actually pays (seems kind of unlikely), what are they going to do with the cash? I RTFA and it didn't mention it. I'd love to see it go to aiding the folks that MS's anticompetitive tactics have hampered, but how would that work? Or would they give it to charity, use it to lower taxes a tiny bit, something positive for people?
Under that ruling, Microsoft must open up parts of their operating system to competitors, and change how they bundle Media Player.
Just for clarification before anyone gets on their soapbox about how Microsoft shouldn't have to open their code to competitors, that is not the parts that the EU wants. They want MS to dislose API type information so that competitors can better interface with Windows. i.e. Samba.
Thank you for fining us. Enclosed you find our offer about Windows Vista special EU edition, the ONLY edition the EU parlament and its associated organs may use. A license costs 2*10^6 USD a day.
Thank for your recent letter. Regretfully, we must decline your offer of your special edition software and its license.
Apparently you are not aware of our country's recent legislation addressing software license rules. In order for a software company to legally sell ANY software in our country, it will now be required to provide, free of charge, a number of fully licensed copies of said software to the government, that number to be determined by the government and revised at the government's discretion.
(Having a monopoly sure sounds like fun. But writing your own laws is even more fun, we think!)
"Microsoft must open up parts of their operating system to competitors, and change how they bundle Media Player."
This is ambiguous and misleading commentary. MS has been ordered to document the APIs of the interaction between their monopoly desktop OS and their non-monopoly server OS to allow competition. This is not "opening up" any part of their OS. They have not been asked to provide any source code and in fact they offered source code as an alternative to the documentation (under terms that would have gutted the benefits of the punishment) and it was rejected as unsatisfactory. To reiterate, MS was not ordered to open up any code, only to provide documentation on the interaction of their OS's.
TFA didn't say it, but other sources [betanews.com] do:
The fine will be applied retroactively from December 15th.
This means on July 12, they will need to pay 209 * 2.0M EUR = 418.000.000 EUR, or 524.339.200 USD. Following that initial payment, they will continue to pay 2 million EUR each day.
It doesn't state anywhere whether the fine applies only to business days, or also to weekends and holidays. I've assumed it also applies to weekends and holidays since the laws are just as applicable on these days as on any other day.
Just let the market sort it out: do NOT grant companies protection for patents, copyrights, reverse engineering. Then the problem will solve itself.
Many people are against monopolies, including myself. In fact I think monopolies are one of the few areas where state intervention is needed in the economy. However, even most monpolies only come to life and continue to exist not because the state doesn't do something against them, but because the state SUPPORTS them. They are supported by laws regarding patent, copyright, trade restrictions (e.g. against imports) and lately even against reverse engineering. Without such harmfull state intervention in the market, not many monopolies would survive for long.
The EU need only abolish copyrights, and the problem shall be quickly solved.
Microsoft will never play nice. What's totally amazing is other countries are imposing theses rulings, but in America they get away with it. If all these other countries think it's wrong, maybe it is.
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday June 27 2006, @11:04AM (#15613185)
What are the chances of this being simply an excuse to generate a $2.5 million per day revenue stream for the EU government?
Zero. The revenue is doubtless a nice bonus but what matters most to governments is power. Microsoft has decided to defy the collective requrements of the sovereign governments that make up the EU, while operating in their markets. They're not going to let Microsoft get away with that if they can possibly help it. That's all the motive they need.
There is no "EU government". Further, the EU annual budget dwarves a paltry $2.5m/day; while more money is always good, there's no need to create spurious conspiracy theories.
The EU is merely taking the sort of corrective measures the US DoJ should have taken a long, long time ago. I fail to see how a company that's been convicted of a crime can go unpunished for so long.
Microsoft has had to issue numerous press releases saying they can't figure out what the EU wants them to do, and that the EU is just punishing them for making such a great operating system. They've had to pay for numerous "independent" studies to prove that showing several million lines of unreadable source code is the same as documenting an API. Haven't they suffered enough?!?!
If that were the case, they'd be making it as difficult as possible for Microsoft to comply with their demands instead of telling them exactly what they are doing wrong and giving them years to correct their mistake.
I know it's trendy to accuse the EU of being greedy and anti-American, and I don't deny that the money will be happily spent, but that doesn't mean Microsoft isn't breaking the law and it doesn't mean the EU aren't right to fine them.
Microsoft could easily avoid these fines by complying with the court ruling. They have chosen to make every effort to avoid doing so, and these fines are the result.
not really, some of the Samba guys are on those independent committees for the EU, so they know EXACTLY what they are needing as far as documentation. It's a running joke that the interface for windows printer and file sharing is so messed up the current MICROSOFT devs occasionally need to dig out the documentation from the open source [and reverse-engineered] Samba project to figure out how to do their jobs... on the REAL source code. One clarification too, the EU did NOT demand MS to open up their source code.. that would mean giving up IP... they only required an Open, freely available, no-strings-attached, documentation of how window file and print sharing [plus authentication and a few other things] work.. had it had to be usable.. both technically and legally. MS instead dumped millions of lines of source, under NDA, and a steep licensing fee.... somebody's deliberately not hearing the question.. and it's not the EU.
"Microsoft is headquartered in the US. I don't think the EU has the authority to simply demand money from them."
Microsoft is a multi-national conglomerate doing business in many nations around the world. As such, they are requires to obey the laws and accept the sanctions imposed by every country or, in the case of the EU, group of countries they do business in.
"Sure, they can kick 'em out of the country, but MS should call their bluff."
Sure they should. Then the EU should simply impound all of MS's European assets, and strip them of all patent and copyright protection, thus allowing Europeans to install their new open source, free operating system quite legally under the laws of the EU.
When you grow up you'll realize that there are other countries, legal systems, and ways of looking at things than the US's. BTW, as I pointed out before, the EU is a GROUP of countries... your statement about "kick them out of the country" berely underscores your ignorance.
Microsoft is a multi-national conglomerate doing business in many nations around the world.
Indeed. Moreover, a lot of people from the US who lurk around here don't seem to appreciate how small their market is compared to the rest of the world. The US may have the world's single biggest national economy (though not by far, depending on the metric you use) but compared to, say, Europe as a whole, it's not so much. Losing most or all of its European income would basically kill Microsoft overnight. Of course, in the current economic climate, it could also trigger the freefall meltdown that the world economy is in grave danger of falling into any time now.:-(
Microsoft is headquartered in the US. I don't think the EU has the authority to simply demand money from them.
As a matter of authority, that is a prima facie right of sovereignty [wikipedia.org]. It is enforceability that is at issue, a practical matter. The EU can seize Microsoft assets therein, and elsewhere through the Doctrine of Comity [wikipedia.org] and any reciprocity treaties.
Interestingly, and more fundamentally, Microsoft's assets exist only and precisely because sovereigns grant them. These are known as vested rights (or acquired rights), and exist only by way of a sovereign's decision to limit their own power, vis-a-vis the Magna Carta [wikipedia.org].
The American line of reasoning, bottom-up rights of a constituent superceding natural rights of the state is based upon experiences from a long history of absolute sovereignty that arose from the Peace of Westphalia [wikipedia.org]. (Which was more interested in sovereignty and self-determination as against other states) These acquired rights should not be taken for granted in America, or elsewhere.
That's all pedantic, but underscores the model of law Microsoft is subject to. Their property rights are acquired from sovereign grants, not absolute entitlement, and their rights can be quashed within the EU as a matter of implicit state power, and without as a matter of international relations, notwithstanding the limitations the EU imbues upon its own powers.
If I did my math right, isn't that like 9-something-billion per year in fines? And doesn't MS generate something like 40 billion per year in revenue? I say they won't even notice....
No, it's $912,500,000 a year in fines. I would say Microsoft doesn't *like* to throw away a billion dollars a year on fines, but it certainly wouldn't put them out of business.
I guess I'm looking for trouble by saying this on Slashdot, but I think the EU's reasoning on this issue is faulty, and I think it's an old-fashioned money grab.
They're breaking the law. The US convicted them of it. The EU did too. So did several other nations. They have failed to comply with their punishment. If the EU does not act, they are stating to the world that they won't or can't enforce their own laws. For a fledgling organization like the EU, this would be devastating. If you convict someone of robbery and they escape from the prison instead of serving their time and then stroll into town and tell everyone they aren't going to accept the punishment since they don't want to, the law bloody well better act if they want to be taken seriously, ever.
Good thing I'm not in charge of Microsoft. Out of spite I'd have pulled up stakes of everything in the EU, save for a distribution warehouse.
Yeah, because you'd be fired and replaced within hours.
I love it how The Slashdot GroupThink questions the validitiy and constitutionality of laws such as the DMCA, copyright laws, IP laws, etc., but when it comes down to anti-trust laws, there is NO debate, whatsoever, and people such as yourself continually just parrot "They broke the law! They broke the law!". Nice.
They're breaking the law. The US convicted them of it. The EU did too. So did several other nations. They have failed to comply with their punishment. If the EU does not act, they are stating to the world that they won't or can't enforce their own laws.
What the rest of the world did or did not decide is irrelevant. What I disagree with is the "failed to comply" portion. After reading both sides (including those long-winded PDF submissions from both sides), I think the EU's original demands were unclear to the point of unusability, and that Microsoft, in this case, has actually strived to comply. I think the EU has made a game of making Microsoft "guess", and then saying, "BZZT! WRONG! We didn't mean that, but we're not going to clarify much either. Try again. Oh, and your time is up."
Perhaps the commission was expecting MS to produce proper documentation, rather than try to guess how close to useless they could get while still being in compliance.
Microsoft has been screwing us with the price for years. I mean... follow the price of every new version of Windows and it doubles in price each release for very little. The only reason they raise the price that much is because they KNOW people will pay the high prices for no real gain. Now, if any other business were to do the same thing people would scream price gouging and never buy... but no.... it is for some reason different because its Microsoft.
That... and bad business practices are why I do not like Microsoft. I mean, the Caldera vs Microsoft lawsuit in which microsoft caused FAKE error messages after it detected another version of dos ASIDE from MS DOS even there there was technically nothing wrong? If that does not scream crap business practice I dont know what does. It happened again recently where people complained the MSN web site looked like crap in Opera. Someone running linux found out that using wget to download the msn web site identifying itself as IE shows that the hiccups were on purpose the even THOSE web sites looked like crap in IE. Microsoft settled with Opera outside of court because of their deep pockets. Opera SHOULD have kept up the lawsuit.
Like it or not Microsoft is not the honest company you think they are and they should be fined harshly.
Lets say a company like Dodge (auto company) had a monopolistic influence over the auto industry (they dont.. but lets just pretend) and they tell all of the auto manufacturers that they will provide the Hemi engine FOR FREE to all of them. Now, because of their monopolistic presence, all of the companies dump EVERY OTHER engine manufacturer because of a) their name, and b) the free price... then you would see LOTS of people and lots of states getting ready to sue Dodge. Primarily because the states and the government have a lot to gain from LOTS of other companies making competing engines. In this hypothetical example, Dodge would put the engine making industry in danger and you would see states and even other countries sue dodge.
Because they are criminals that harm everyone and the computing industry in general with their crimes and because they have participated in the corruption of the US government by paying huge bribes to both major parties campaign funds to have the case against them gutted.
Doesnt Win amp run as good as media player does on windows?
How is this relevant?
No matter what you say if microsoft withdrew all support and products from europe their[sic] would be some nasty consiquences[sic].
Yeah, but they would be nasty mostly for MS.
It would take some time for all servers and desktops to be tranistioned[sic] to linux.
So, what would be the rush? Is MS going to try to get people in Europe arrested for pirating their software? Yeah, I'm sure the EU will get right on that. They'd probably revoke all of MS's trademarks, copyright, and patents in Europe, making Windows source code available freely.
then would come trying to deal with the u.s and other countries that still use microsoft.
Do you think other countries would not follow Europe's lead when MS failed to comply there? Do you think no one could manage to save as PDF, or use open office to open Word files?
It would be very bad if microsoft took everything out of Europe.
Yeah, that 10 minutes before the emergency conference call of MS's board would be pretty bad. Then the CEO would be removed and they'd go back to complying with the law. No one walks away from 20 billion in profit to avoid paying.7 billion. No one creates a huge market for their competitors, while undermining the monopoly that lets them make those outrageous profits. No one breaks their contracts with every major multinational in the world and expects to walk away from it. MS may be wealthy, but compared to the huge companies they would be screwing over they are a minnow in the ocean.
For you video game junkies that would include the Xbox 360
It's just one more market they are trying to make headway in that they would be crushed in.
I am starting to feel the EU is just trying to extort money out of microsoft. Microsoft has been giving them what they want from what I have seen and they still are asking for money.
Stop reading the MS press releases as news. No really, I'm serious. MS has not complied and have not documented the APIs well enough to allow competitors to compete on even footing. This is as judged by the expert MS picked to make this decision. Since you haven't seen the docs and he has and given his expertise and credibility, what possible reason could you think you have for being a better judge than he is? MS press releases can say what they want, but if you believe they are true and unbiased then you are complete fool.
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Informative)
Scratch that. If I RTFA, I would know that that was exactly what they said in 2004.
Parent
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing the article didn't mention however is that the fine can be issued retrospectively, i.e: if they issue the fine today it would be back-payable to December '05!
Parent
Spare the rod... (Score:5, Insightful)
... spoil the megacorp.
Seriously, it seems that the entire history of antitrust action against MS in the US and Europe has been a colossal waste of time and effort. All it has done is show that governments don't really have the teeth to cut into Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. I originally thought the DOJ action was going to curb MS, but it didn't.
When push came to shove, the US government wasn't truly prepared to make one of the crown jewels of American business suffer in order to make it change its ways. The EU is likely unwilling to push too hard for fear of invoking the wrath of the US government, which is just further proof that if a business becomes big enough, it can only very rarely be constrained by government.
Market forces are doing a far better job of constraining Microsoft. Perhaps if Microsoft's competitors hadn't relied on antitrust lawsuits to save them, they might have fought MS more aggressively and effectively in the past. Apple learned its lesson. Sun (belatedly) learned its lesson. The lesson is that the government isn't going to help you fight Microsoft, so you have to figure out a way to do it yourself.
Parent
Re:Spare the rod... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US case, the justice department got a conviction against Microsoft. Then the Bush administration was sworn in, and the incoming DOJ whittled the punishment down into a "don't do it again, *wink* *wink*, *nudge* *nudge*."
In the European case, the EU is still finding its legs as an entity/pseudo-government. Any action they take against MS is going to be debated, re-debated, whined about, etc. They have the teeth, it's a question of whether they have the will to take a bite.
Parent
Re:Spare the rod... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that they don't have the teeth... it's that they don't have the BALLS! And sad to say, Europe is showing it has a helluva lot more balls than the US. Of course, this is mainly because lobbying is an industry of corruption here in the US. I'm honestly amazed that the EU hasn't been bought off yet or bribed into submission.
Parent
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm the same way, not a fan at all, but, I do wonder at what point, what would prevent MS from basically thumbing their nose at EU, and saying fine, we'll just withdraw all new products from you market...and if things got worse, just plain stop supporting the products currently out there in EU.
I would not guess it would be good for business, but, if MS has that much cash they're sitting on, and still can do business with the rest of the world...what would stop them from pulling this, and using that to leverage the EU into getting off their ass about this?
Sure, while it would seriously promote alternate OSes in EU, could the EU stand to have the carpet pulled out from under them in this manner considering how entrenched MS is in the world of computing..?
Parent
Microsoft snuffing Europe? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would not guess it would be good for business, but, if MS has that much cash they're sitting on, and still can do business with the rest of the world...what would stop them from pulling this, and using that to leverage the EU into getting off their ass about this?
A problem with this is that Europe is a big market for Microsoft. Then there's also the possibility other regions or countries can follow their lead. Brazil for instance has been getting into open source a lot recently and it's gaining in India as well. Take a look at MIT's Nicholas Negroponte and his $100 Laptop [pcmag.com], part of a program to put a laptop in every child's lap. Something like this can be liability as well. If Microsoft doesn't try to work with programs like this, they could pull the carpet out from MS's feet.
FalconParent
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that it would hurt with regard to new computer sales etc... however MS cannot stop existing installations from working. I also assume that should MS decide that they do not want to offer updates to existing software in the EU, while providing them for the rest of the world, that the EU would sanction "illegal" copies of said updates within the EU.
Also, and probably more importantly, if MS did this (I am gonna take my ball and go home!) do you think that would be soon forgotten in EU countries? At that point MS becomes more of an enemy to the EU computing world than simply an 800lb gorilla. I think that should MS follow through with pulling out of EU it will probably result in MS not ever being able to re-enter that market; not due to political/legal problems but because people would not forget the way they were shunned by MS while MS was trying to make a point. In other words, if MS pulls out of EU, they have to consider the consequences with one of the most likely being that they could never re-enter that market in a substantial way again.
Now before the MS apologists vent let me say a couple things. No, right now there is no equivilant replacement to MS. As a result, how long do you think it would be before either emulation (aka wine) was improved to the point of being transparent to the end user or how long before a lot of other software manufacturers start porting to Linux*? The EU has too many potential sales to ignore which most likely means that MS can no longer convince software houses to remain loyal to the MS world view of software.
*I say Linux because it is the most sensible alternative. OSX does not run on generic (aka non-Apple) i386 and there are too many machines in place already. The BSDs are behind Linux in compatibilty with hardware and the amount of software written for Linux. I cannot think of any other OS that even approaches the maturity of Linux at this point.
Parent
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Insightful)
It would kill the company overnight.
Pulling out of Europe would also mean anyone that does a lot of business with Europe (read China, India, and many other places that don't rely solely on the US) would need compatibility with Europe too.. Which means they'd be introduced to non-MS products.
With Europe + rest of world (bar US, most likely) using non-MS products rather quickly, the US would soon find that to do business with the rest of the world, it'd have to be compliant with the non-MS standard that had arisen behind the world wide economy.
Which would loosen the grip of MS in the US, eventually making it irrelevant.
So, in other words, they could choose spite, and kill their whole company in a couple of years (while leaving a lot of pain in the wake for a short amount of time), or they can toe the line, open their API, and do what the EU asks, and then have to compete on innovation with the rest of the world. Which, with the brains in the MS research labs, I reckon they've got a good shot at doing. Like IBM, they'll be around for decades to come, but without the massive monopoly they have now.
If I were running the company, I know which option I'd choose.
Parent
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Interesting)
Once governments leave the windows business, large government contractors and their subcontractors will follow. This would hurt Microsoft much more than it would hurt EU. To EU it would mean one or two years with a lot of hazzle, while applications was wineified, ported to e.g. Linux, or replaced with software running on MacOS-X, To Microsoft it would mean the end of their dominance on the desktop world wide. In turn that would also mean that they would lose their grip on hardware venders, nobody is prepared to lose a big market like Europe just to ship products that only runs windows.
So, we can be quite sure that Microsoft will either pay their fines, or comply. There is really nothing to worry about.
Parent
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Informative)
No one has asked that MS open *ANY* source code. Please do not spread such FUD; or are you astroturfing? The reason I ask is that this is the *exact* argument MS has been known to use.
Parent
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Informative)
Now, the source code is the implementation of those protocolls. If MS manages to supply the market with the best implementation, MS will keep the market. If not, it will lose it (or at least some parts of it) to the competition.
On the other hand, if MS keeps their protocolls secret, changing them every now and then just so that the reverse engineering efforts of the competition get undermined, the quality of the implementation MS provides is largely of no importance, because there is no NEED for MS to improve it.
I am sure you see in which of the above two cases the consumer is a winner, and in which the consumer is just a silent cash-cow, forced to update from time to time, and with no chance to ever come out of being dependent on one (and only one) company.
Now again, what is your problem with the EU in this case?
Parent
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are way off here. Europe is not just a 'Big Market' for Microsoft.
If MS was to make 2 mill a day in EU, but fined 2.5 mill a day, it would be best to just move out, right?
Or do you think that the loss of support for all of Europe might have a mass effect on the world market? These days most corporations have large divisions in Europe, or interact with counterparts in europe. If EU was forced to switch to anything but MS, large parts of the outside world would also.
Not to mention, that if an entire continent showed it was capable of being productive without the juggernaught that MS is, the rest of the world would soon follow the example.
And dont think that MS leaving EU would cause them to just callapse in onto themselves or something, just a big setback to start.
Of course, Microsoft knows thats not even an option, and it'll never happen.
Parent
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Bundle? I lol'd (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think you can bundle anything more than making it completely uninstallable.
Oh noes! (Score:4, Funny)
How will they come up with enough change out of Bill Gates' couch to pay that daily?
They might have to pull directly from the company coffee fund!
Respect (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently, someone in the EU has some soft skills and knows that at this stage it isn't about being right or wrong or fair or blablabla. If the EU doesn't bite after making so much noise about it, they'll have a hard time ever getting MS to comply with anything.
Re:Respect (Score:4, Interesting)
In the US, under Clinton, there was an overwhemling victory against MS. When the judge could not keep his mouth shut and the case was up for retrial, under Bush, the government struck a sweetheart deal.
I, personally, did not see any problem with a judge calling a bunch of criminals, criminals, after he had seen all the evidence, but hey, what do I know, I live in the real world.
Parent
Oh MEINE GOTT! At that rate.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh MEINE GOTT! At that rate.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
what are they going to do with the money? (Score:5, Interesting)
Clarification (Score:5, Informative)
Under that ruling, Microsoft must open up parts of their operating system to competitors, and change how they bundle Media Player.
Just for clarification before anyone gets on their soapbox about how Microsoft shouldn't have to open their code to competitors, that is not the parts that the EU wants. They want MS to dislose API type information so that competitors can better interface with Windows. i.e. Samba.
Dear EU, (Score:5, Funny)
Or, could we talk that fine thing over, maybe?
(it's fun to have a monopoly, ain't it?)
Dear Microsoft, (Score:4, Funny)
Apparently you are not aware of our country's recent legislation addressing software license rules. In order for a software company to legally sell ANY software in our country, it will now be required to provide, free of charge, a number of fully licensed copies of said software to the government, that number to be determined by the government and revised at the government's discretion.
(Having a monopoly sure sounds like fun. But writing your own laws is even more fun, we think!)
Parent
Misleading Commentary (Score:5, Informative)
"Microsoft must open up parts of their operating system to competitors, and change how they bundle Media Player."
This is ambiguous and misleading commentary. MS has been ordered to document the APIs of the interaction between their monopoly desktop OS and their non-monopoly server OS to allow competition. This is not "opening up" any part of their OS. They have not been asked to provide any source code and in fact they offered source code as an alternative to the documentation (under terms that would have gutted the benefits of the punishment) and it was rejected as unsatisfactory. To reiterate, MS was not ordered to open up any code, only to provide documentation on the interaction of their OS's.
$2.5 million = still a slap on the wrist (Score:4, Insightful)
At 2.5 million dollars a day, he'd be bankrupt in 54 years, assuming absolutely no income or other expenditures.
I'm sure the company's pockets are much deeper than Gates's personal fortune.
The fine is also applied retroactively (Score:5, Interesting)
The fine will be applied retroactively from December 15th.
This means on July 12, they will need to pay 209 * 2.0M EUR = 418.000.000 EUR, or 524.339.200 USD. Following that initial payment, they will continue to pay 2 million EUR each day.
It doesn't state anywhere whether the fine applies only to business days, or also to weekends and holidays. I've assumed it also applies to weekends and holidays since the laws are just as applicable on these days as on any other day.
There is no need for state interference (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people are against monopolies, including myself. In fact I think monopolies are one of the few areas where state intervention is needed in the economy. However, even most monpolies only come to life and continue to exist not because the state doesn't do something against them, but because the state SUPPORTS them. They are supported by laws regarding patent, copyright, trade restrictions (e.g. against imports) and lately even against reverse engineering. Without such harmfull state intervention in the market, not many monopolies would survive for long.
The EU need only abolish copyrights, and the problem shall be quickly solved.
Re:Now THAT is a lot better... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Serious Question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Serious Question: (Score:5, Insightful)
What are the chances of this being simply an excuse to generate a $2.5 million per day revenue stream for the EU government?
Errrm, none? There is no "EU government" - perhaps you meant intergovernmental European Union, or the European Council, Commission or Parliament?
The EU has a budget of over 1% of the European GDP (works out at around US$ 160 billion). Why would they want $2.5m/day?
Rich.
Parent
Re:Serious Question: (Score:4, Insightful)
Zero. The revenue is doubtless a nice bonus but what matters most to governments is power. Microsoft has decided to defy the collective requrements of the sovereign governments that make up the EU, while operating in their markets. They're not going to let Microsoft get away with that if they can possibly help it. That's all the motive they need.
Parent
Re:Serious Question: (Score:5, Informative)
The EU is merely taking the sort of corrective measures the US DoJ should have taken a long, long time ago. I fail to see how a company that's been convicted of a crime can go unpunished for so long.
Parent
Unpunished? Are you crazy? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Serious Question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Would this be Slashdot if we didn't?
Parent
Re:Serious Question: (Score:5, Insightful)
If that were the case, they'd be making it as difficult as possible for Microsoft to comply with their demands instead of telling them exactly what they are doing wrong and giving them years to correct their mistake.
I know it's trendy to accuse the EU of being greedy and anti-American, and I don't deny that the money will be happily spent, but that doesn't mean Microsoft isn't breaking the law and it doesn't mean the EU aren't right to fine them.
Microsoft could easily avoid these fines by complying with the court ruling. They have chosen to make every effort to avoid doing so, and these fines are the result.
Parent
Re:Serious Question: (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
PLEASE let MS call their bluff... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is a multi-national conglomerate doing business in many nations around the world. As such, they are requires to obey the laws and accept the sanctions imposed by every country or, in the case of the EU, group of countries they do business in.
"Sure, they can kick 'em out of the country, but MS should call their bluff."
Sure they should. Then the EU should simply impound all of MS's European assets, and strip them of all patent and copyright protection, thus allowing Europeans to install their new open source, free operating system quite legally under the laws of the EU.
When you grow up you'll realize that there are other countries, legal systems, and ways of looking at things than the US's. BTW, as I pointed out before, the EU is a GROUP of countries... your statement about "kick them out of the country" berely underscores your ignorance.
But thanks for playing.
Parent
Re:PLEASE let MS call their bluff... (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. Moreover, a lot of people from the US who lurk around here don't seem to appreciate how small their market is compared to the rest of the world. The US may have the world's single biggest national economy (though not by far, depending on the metric you use) but compared to, say, Europe as a whole, it's not so much. Losing most or all of its European income would basically kill Microsoft overnight. Of course, in the current economic climate, it could also trigger the freefall meltdown that the world economy is in grave danger of falling into any time now. :-(
Parent
Re:Serious Question: (Score:5, Informative)
As a matter of authority, that is a prima facie right of sovereignty [wikipedia.org]. It is enforceability that is at issue, a practical matter. The EU can seize Microsoft assets therein, and elsewhere through the Doctrine of Comity [wikipedia.org] and any reciprocity treaties.
Interestingly, and more fundamentally, Microsoft's assets exist only and precisely because sovereigns grant them. These are known as vested rights (or acquired rights), and exist only by way of a sovereign's decision to limit their own power, vis-a-vis the Magna Carta [wikipedia.org].
The American line of reasoning, bottom-up rights of a constituent superceding natural rights of the state is based upon experiences from a long history of absolute sovereignty that arose from the Peace of Westphalia [wikipedia.org]. (Which was more interested in sovereignty and self-determination as against other states) These acquired rights should not be taken for granted in America, or elsewhere.
That's all pedantic, but underscores the model of law Microsoft is subject to. Their property rights are acquired from sovereign grants, not absolute entitlement, and their rights can be quashed within the EU as a matter of implicit state power, and without as a matter of international relations, notwithstanding the limitations the EU imbues upon its own powers.
Parent
Re:It's only money... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I Think the EU is Wrong Here (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess I'm looking for trouble by saying this on Slashdot, but I think the EU's reasoning on this issue is faulty, and I think it's an old-fashioned money grab.
They're breaking the law. The US convicted them of it. The EU did too. So did several other nations. They have failed to comply with their punishment. If the EU does not act, they are stating to the world that they won't or can't enforce their own laws. For a fledgling organization like the EU, this would be devastating. If you convict someone of robbery and they escape from the prison instead of serving their time and then stroll into town and tell everyone they aren't going to accept the punishment since they don't want to, the law bloody well better act if they want to be taken seriously, ever.
Good thing I'm not in charge of Microsoft. Out of spite I'd have pulled up stakes of everything in the EU, save for a distribution warehouse.
Yeah, because you'd be fired and replaced within hours.
Parent
Re:I Think the EU is Wrong Here (Score:4, Insightful)
I love it how The Slashdot GroupThink questions the validitiy and constitutionality of laws such as the DMCA, copyright laws, IP laws, etc., but when it comes down to anti-trust laws, there is NO debate, whatsoever, and people such as yourself continually just parrot "They broke the law! They broke the law!". Nice.
Parent
Re:I Think the EU is Wrong Here (Score:5, Interesting)
What the rest of the world did or did not decide is irrelevant. What I disagree with is the "failed to comply" portion. After reading both sides (including those long-winded PDF submissions from both sides), I think the EU's original demands were unclear to the point of unusability, and that Microsoft, in this case, has actually strived to comply. I think the EU has made a game of making Microsoft "guess", and then saying, "BZZT! WRONG! We didn't mean that, but we're not going to clarify much either. Try again. Oh, and your time is up."
Parent
Re:I Think the EU is Wrong Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Raise the price of Windows in Europe (Score:4, Interesting)
That
Like it or not Microsoft is not the honest company you think they are and they should be fined harshly.
Lets say a company like Dodge (auto company) had a monopolistic influence over the auto industry (they dont
Yes, I hate Microsoft.
Parent
Re:funyn (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is everyone so against microsoft
Because they are criminals that harm everyone and the computing industry in general with their crimes and because they have participated in the corruption of the US government by paying huge bribes to both major parties campaign funds to have the case against them gutted.
Doesnt Win amp run as good as media player does on windows?
How is this relevant?
No matter what you say if microsoft withdrew all support and products from europe their[sic] would be some nasty consiquences[sic].
Yeah, but they would be nasty mostly for MS.
It would take some time for all servers and desktops to be tranistioned[sic] to linux.
So, what would be the rush? Is MS going to try to get people in Europe arrested for pirating their software? Yeah, I'm sure the EU will get right on that. They'd probably revoke all of MS's trademarks, copyright, and patents in Europe, making Windows source code available freely.
then would come trying to deal with the u.s and other countries that still use microsoft.
Do you think other countries would not follow Europe's lead when MS failed to comply there? Do you think no one could manage to save as PDF, or use open office to open Word files?
It would be very bad if microsoft took everything out of Europe.
Yeah, that 10 minutes before the emergency conference call of MS's board would be pretty bad. Then the CEO would be removed and they'd go back to complying with the law. No one walks away from 20 billion in profit to avoid paying .7 billion. No one creates a huge market for their competitors, while undermining the monopoly that lets them make those outrageous profits. No one breaks their contracts with every major multinational in the world and expects to walk away from it. MS may be wealthy, but compared to the huge companies they would be screwing over they are a minnow in the ocean.
For you video game junkies that would include the Xbox 360
It's just one more market they are trying to make headway in that they would be crushed in.
I am starting to feel the EU is just trying to extort money out of microsoft. Microsoft has been giving them what they want from what I have seen and they still are asking for money.
Stop reading the MS press releases as news. No really, I'm serious. MS has not complied and have not documented the APIs well enough to allow competitors to compete on even footing. This is as judged by the expert MS picked to make this decision. Since you haven't seen the docs and he has and given his expertise and credibility, what possible reason could you think you have for being a better judge than he is? MS press releases can say what they want, but if you believe they are true and unbiased then you are complete fool.
Parent