Microsoft Fails to Comply With EU Requirements 609
sebFlyte writes "ZDNet is reporting the news that the EU has rejected Microsoft's attempt to wriggle out of it's legal obligation to open up Windows protocols. Microsoft was attempting to bypass the regulation by offering a license totally incompatible with the GPL and which has an absurdly high fee attached. If Microsoft don't come up with a solution that the EU finds acceptable, then they can be fined $5m a day. They've also got some commentary on why Microsoft's behaviour cannot be allowed to stand." The BBC has commentary as well.
Like Larry Flynt (Score:5, Insightful)
15 years.
The EU would have to charge them $50 million a day before they'd really
care.
Re:Like Larry Flynt (Score:4, Insightful)
$1.8 billion a year is a lot of dough (Score:5, Interesting)
$1.8 billion a year would be a big boost to free software if an EU agency were to funnel it into free software development. That would anger Microsoft more than increasing the fine would.
Re:$1.8 billion a year is a lot of dough (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:$1.8 billion a year is a lot of dough (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:$1.8 billion a year is a lot of dough (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, right! What are the chances that big government will actually apply a fine towards fixing the problem the fine was levied for? Like ZILCH?
You don't know the meaning of the word (Score:3, Insightful)
It's pathetic how people here claim to value freedom, but have no problem taking away someone's freedom when they don't like what they're doing. So now you want private companies to pay for your free software and use the force of govt. to get what you want. So much for freedom.
Re:$1.8 billion a year is a lot of dough (Score:2)
You see nothing wrong with using the tyrannical force of the state to take money from one party to give to another?
No, because using the power of the state of redirect wealth from Microsoft is a good thing (tm) because it punishes Microsoft who are obviously the source of all that is wrong in the IT sector.
Using the power of the state to enforce reliability standards on cell phones/VOIP or to regulate private space travel so we don't have spent rocket boosters falling on our houses is a bad thing (tm)
Re:$1.8 billion a year is a lot of dough (Score:5, Insightful)
The fine is becasue they are not obeying the law still. So how is this abusing Microsoft? They're making a big deal about legality of software and media and patents etc.. They can't want the law in one case and not in the other.
Re:$1.8 billion a year is a lot of dough (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll remember that argumenet the next time I have a speeding ticket.
The local government uses its tyrannical power to fine me and then give that money to the local school system or some other party.
Microsoft has defied a court order here. They should be fined. Or maybe you believe that all global megacorps or indeed anyone should be able to defy court orders with impunity?
Re:Like Larry Flynt (Score:5, Interesting)
The EU is slow and undecisive, but like all huge burocratic institutions, once it gets moving it has a certain inertia.
Re:Like Larry Flynt (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Like Larry Flynt (Score:2)
Of course I know thats a lot of money. For me and you it is. But from Microsoft's point of view, it might be a fair trade off. Especially given their previous tactics.
In all likelyhood, they probably will comply with the EU's regulations in some way or another.
Re:Like Larry Flynt (Score:3, Insightful)
It's useless to attack a large corporation such as Microsoft with fines and taking away money, because it doesn't work. Instead, take away things that they need to stay in power, such as forcing them to open their protocols, or greater interoperability. But not money.
Re:Like Larry Flynt (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the entire idea behind the ruling, as spelled out in the blurb (not even the article!). You just need a big stick when you tell them "open your protocols OR ELSE!". The multimillion dollar/day fines are the "or else".
Re:Like Larry Flynt (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Fines have to be implemented. You say take away things that they need to stay in power, such as forcing them to open their protocols, or greater interoperability. But if Microsoft fails to comply? What are you going to do? Whine and pout? You have to fine them. And if that fails, prevent them from selling in your member countries.
3) Ultimately it is money that a corporation is interested in, and SHOULD be interested in. It is up to gov't to create a system that makes that interest for money compatable with the wishes of society.
Re:Like Larry Flynt (Score:3, Interesting)
Not having open standards hasn't stopped the Samba team. Reverse engineering only makes it harder to do something. It's not prevention. Better to concede and use that $5m per day to innovate/morph faster than th
Re:Like Larry Flynt (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. tends to be so Free Market that corps step on the little guy. Europe tends to be so restrictive that they have double digit unemployment in their largest countries. At some point, someone will realize there is a blance between the two.
Re:Like Larry Flynt (Score:2)
Re:Like Larry Flynt (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Like Larry Flynt (Score:3, Informative)
Stats not really comparable (Score:4, Interesting)
One major point is who you count; examples:
That's one "funny" problem in Germany right now:
Due to a part of a federal law change (meant to reduce unemployment) Germany's rate is jumping right now:
municipalities are "reclassifying" recipients of social security that in reality can't or won't work as people who are able to work (=can _in_theory_ work at _some_ job for at least 3 hours a day), upping the current unemployment rate big time.
The money is about the same, so why are they doing such a silly bureaucratic thing, binding even more resources meant to help willing people find a job, lessening their chances?
A: Because of the new law, unemployment insurance is now payed from the federal fund and municipalities are only responsible for social security.
In some areas more than 99% of former social security recipients are suddenly able to work again.
It's really a wonder! Must be Jesus doing a "Germany 2005 Tour" or something like that..
Now, who didn't see that one coming..
Re:Countries' rates... (Score:5, Informative)
Sweden: 4.9% (2003 estimate)
Norway: 4.7% (2003 est.)
Denmark: 6.1% (2003)
Finland: 9% (2003 est.)
Iceland: 3.4% (2003 est.)
Greenland: 10% (2000 est.)
For comparison:
United States: 6% (2003)
United Kingdom: 5% (2003 est.)
Canada: 7.8% (2003 est.)
France: 9.7% (2003 est.)
Germany: 10.5% (2003 est.)
Netherlands: 3.7% (2003 est.)
Switzerland: 3.7% (2003 est.)
This link [nber.org] says that the European Union's unemployment rate as a whole is 8%. They report various numbers differently than the CIA world factbook, such as reporting Denmark's rate as "below 5 per cent." They also say:
"Still, there is however no obvious relationship between the degree of social protection and the unemployment rate today. For example, the Netherlands has returned to low unemployment while continuing to offer high social protection. Scandinavian countries have maintained both high social protection and a low natural rate of unemployment."
Re:Like Larry Flynt (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft did something that drastic, the EU could simply declare ALL of Microsoft's products in the public domain. I'm sure a lot of 3rd party EU support vendors would be quite happy to provide support for EU companies who depend on Microsoft software.
Unlike companies which sell real physical products, companies which depend on "intellectual property" as a product will live or die by the legal framework supporting such property definitions. Such companies must not, under no circumstances, truly piss off the legislators, or they will find that their business model is fundamentally irrelevant to society.
Re:Like Larry Flynt (Score:2)
Thought experiment (Score:3, Insightful)
Q: Which will decay to half of its value first -- the mass of the lead or Microsoft's cash reserves?
holy crap! (Score:3)
Re:holy crap! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's been solidly demonstrated that if you don't do something very large to dissuade Microsoft, they will ignore you.
In this case they were told they needed to open up their protocols and stop being anti-competitive, or they'd face something like this.
In their usual way, they've decided that charging you large amounts of money to have access to those protocols, as well as preventing everyone in the open source arena from actually using this stuff was what was called for. Basically this violates the letter and spirit of the ruling against Microsoft.
The US DoJ basically stopped pursuing this when Bush got into office. At least the EU actually has the smarts to actually enforce their rulings.
It is entirely against the long-term interests of the entire industry for Microsoft to say 'you can't write software that talks to our software'. All Your Base is not acceptable in this case.
Re:holy crap! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is precisely the case in which the 'guns of government' need to be used and it is long overdue.
Re:holy crap! (Score:2)
Re:holy crap! (Score:2)
Re:holy crap! (Score:4, Informative)
Not really, they had a choice. They could have complied with the spirit of the initial order and done what was required. Instead they chose to flagerantly flout the order to try to make the order benefit themselves, which is an insult to the court. They are now in a worse situation as they do not have any sympathy of the court. They only have themselves to blame.
Re:holy crap! (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider what Microsoft has actually done to get that penalty... This has nothing to do with failing to open up their protocols, and everything to do with all but telling the EU the go fornicate with itself.
Governments don't like that - If one company gets away with it, the rest will join in very quickly.
However, in this situation, Microsoft still has
Re:holy crap! (Score:3, Insightful)
Attacking the critical
Re:holy crap! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really. For one thing, governements and any important businesses will have daily (or more frequent) backups of anything important, redundancy, and also a variety of operating systems (even if these are not o
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Interesting.. (Score:2)
They could probably comply with the EU by cutting the license fee by 75%.
It's simpler, really (Score:5, Informative)
Again, this doesn't mean that Windows had to be suddenly GPLed, but that the APIs should be available to _anyone_ who wants to write a program for Windows. Hardly an unreasonable demand, don't you think?
Well, MS basically thought it was smart and slapped a license on those protocols and APIs that basically said you can't share that info with anyone, or show your code to anyone. Basically a legalese way of saying "ok, but you can't use those specs in an OSS program."
Which basically already places a rather unreasonable restriction, when the whole idea in the first place was to make that info available to everyone.
Re:It's simpler, really (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's simpler, really (Score:3, Insightful)
which part of ANTI-trust is unclear? (Score:3, Informative)
(Or more precisely, that everyone else had a crappier product. Who was gonna win the OS wars? OS/2
$5m a day? (Score:5, Funny)
Sure they need to comply. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft Appears to Own the EU (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure they will. Microsoft bought Ireland cheap, raised their standard of living, and thereby leveraged their influence over the European Union. This has already paid off, and will continue to do so. Take a look at how software patents have been literally shoved down the Europeans' throats, against their will, despite overwhelming votes against them in the token democratic portions of the EU governance regime, despite opposition from most EU m
Re:Sure they need to comply. (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably because they are used to dealing with government in the US.
This kind of tactic will shoot them in the foot because they are ignoring the sovereignty of the EU. The EU won't put up with it since it will dilute their power.
Assuming Microsoft cannot bribe their way around it.
Re:Sure they need to comply. (Score:3, Informative)
MS won't pay the fine - just watch. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no illusions that Microsoft would actually pay that - it's an exorbitant amount.
The worst punishment the EU can mete out is to bar Microsoft from doing business in participating countries.
If/when that happens, what will European Average Joe consumer reaction be?
Re:MS won't pay the fine - just watch. (Score:4, Insightful)
One thing that might happen, however, is enforced free licensing of the MS patents that, according to the article, MS claim would be infringed otherwise. Along with forced disclosure of the interfaces, and probably some guarantees that this openness would be preserved in future revisions.
Re:MS won't pay the fine - just watch. (Score:3, Funny)
something like trying to shout "aaaaaahahahahahahahahhaaaaa", and "yeeeessssssssss!!!" at the same time, leading to a kind of choking sound.
Re:MS won't pay the fine - just watch. (Score:5, Interesting)
What's missing in wide-scale adoption of linux is a large commitment by retailers to sell and support Linux-based systems.
The average user doesn't care if he/she's running windows or linux or OSX or Commodore64. They don't care if their browser is IE or Mozilla. They just want the computer to provide the tools they need.
If they can browse the web, send emails, upload photos from their camera, and open files from work they'll be happy.
In the short-run, there might be some headaches for consumers. But in the long-run the result would be a huge install base for linux/OSX.
Re:MS won't pay the fine - just watch. (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MS won't pay the fine - just watch. (Score:2)
That would probably hurt them as much as the $5 million a day fine. The EU probably accounts for nearly half of Microsoft's market, if not more.
Re:MS won't pay the fine - just watch. (Score:2)
If the EU phrases the edict correctly ("We are punishing Microsoft because they will not adhere to principles, and do not have the best interests in mind for developers), then the reaction will be a positive one, and might encourage a switch to another platform, where support for said platform is implied by the EU gov't.
If phrased badly, well then, there's liable to be a riot in the streets.
Re:MS won't pay the fine - just watch. (Score:2)
Don't kid yourself, this really is a small fine for a company the size of Microsoft. For all companies, small fines are just the cost of doing business. They'll just raise the price of some of the products elsewhere to cover the loss in profit.
Re:MS won't pay the fine - just watch. (Score:2)
This is especially a problem with fining a monopoly. Since with their monopoly intact the only level of fines which would be an issue are those large enough to cause immediate cash flow problems.
Re:MS won't pay the fine - just watch. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do so many people think that multinationals can get away with anything? (Please don't take this as a personal attack. I'm genuinely amazed.)
Assets can be seized, managers who willfully make a company dodge the law can be held personally accountable, government money can be spend differenly, government advisories can recommend against using their products, etc., etc. None of these things prevent MS from doing business in the EU.
Sure, hypothetically MS might decide to withdraw from the EU at all, but I bet their investors would be none too happy about that. And it would be even worse for their reputation. Who would ever want to do business with a company that can just decide to effectively disappear? Who's to say they wouldn't pull the same stunt in other regions? Doing such a thing is guaranteed to make to world pay serious attention to open source and that's the very last thing MS wants.
If the EU is genuinely pissed, MS had better pay attention. They've simply got too much to lose. Sure, they can stall and try to get a better deal and they might even get away with it, but the one thing they can't do is pretend they're untouchable, because they're not.
Re:MS won't pay the fine - just watch. (Score:3, Interesting)
Because here in the U.S., they basically can.
Re:MS won't pay the fine - just watch. (Score:3, Funny)
Fines and Microsoft. (Score:5, Insightful)
$ 5m per day is something like $ 1.8 billion dollars per year. So, it hurts bad, but it's still something Microsoft can afford.
This being said, the EU could also decide to slowly raise the fines over time. That would probably make Microsoft move. I just hope they are not going to introduce Windows XP Starter Edition in Europe... Scratch that, I hope MS is going to do just that, since that would make many europeans switch to Linux.
Patience (Score:2, Interesting)
Judges and governments alike should yell "ENOUGH ALREADY!" and enforce the laws to the limit. Period. This is ridiculous.
Re:Patience (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite frankly tho, IMHO Microsoft will have more problems with this than just owing cash. I believe they have a reputation to uphold, and that is worth more than
and.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, in the global economy, trade similarities are going to become more and more important, especially with the US economy taking a very important second place to the EU. They will have to comply to trade. The US is no longer the bully hey once were.
Cough Cough *commissioner* Cough (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do I feel we are watching a made-for-public-viewing spectacle that will ultimately result in a trivial fine being paid and the continuation of business as usual?
Bill, the particular (Score:5, Funny)
I checked on Bill's /. poll response. Evidently, he's not interested in Emporor. He's holding out for Kwisatz Haderach.
Interesting isn't it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Question for our US cousins, will this 5% be taken out of Microsoft before or after they pay US tazes? And how does it feel to be subsidising European justice?
Balmer and RMS (Score:4, Funny)
Make Balmer listen to RMS until all problems are sorted.
Should take about 30 second, oh or Balmers head may explode.
In My Best Nelson Voice... (Score:3, Funny)
Doesn't! (Score:4, Funny)
Doesn't you moron! DOESN'T!
Money, money, money is yummy, yummy, yummy. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know why the idea of Microsoft charging people a licensing fee to develop software for Windows never crossed my mind before.
Perhaps Microsoft wants a class-system of software development for their OS. If you want to write simple things, no charge. If you want to make data-related queries to services like Active Directory or hardware, you pay a small licensing fee. If you want to take advantage of the latest and greatest features (especially when Microsoft has a competing product in the area such as Exchange Server) you will pay through the nose.
NTFS read & WRITE in the future? (Score:3, Interesting)
Charles Foster Kane (Score:5, Interesting)
You're right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year.
You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place - in 60 years.
A Corporate View (Score:5, Insightful)
A company that can't do business in the EU is not a global company, and their growth prospects would be drastically reduced. Remember that there's nothing personal here. The stock is worth the market's estimation of all future profits discounted for inflation, capital cost, risk, etc. $5 million a day in fines would have a much lower impact on MS' stock price. That's because the fine is quantified, predictible and likely short-term. But to be shut out of a market the size of the EU is unprecidented in modern corporate history. No corporate leader could possibly risk such an event. Imagine the shareholder lawsuits if MS stock price fell because they refused to comply with a the law in a juristiction the size of the EU. MS would knuckle under far before such a thing could happen.
Re:Pot calling Kettle Black (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pot calling Kettle Black (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pot calling Kettle Black (Score:3, Insightful)
If it had been a US antitrust watchdog ordering MS to open up their standards, and a US judge finding that MS was to be fined for non-compliance with the order, I think that a lot more people here would be cheering.
I for one applaud the large fine. I have seen corporations shrug and pay lesser fines, and cheerfully remain in violation of court rulings... especially in antitrust cases. This sends a clear signal to MS to compl
Re:WTF (Score:2)
Yes, and deservedly (Score:2, Informative)
That deserves recognition. It's just a shame the Queen didn't make better use of her sword after giving him the knighthood....
Re:WTF (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, yes, yes, I know that strictly speaking the Queen does it on the advice of the PM but we all know how it really works.
Re:WTF (Score:3, Funny)
Re:WTF (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's wrong with EU? (Score:5, Insightful)
See, it works like this, MS is a vertical monopoly, and therefore they also develop software for their OS. If they use their superior position in the OS arena to help build their own applications, they are abusing their monopoly vertically.
That means, that if they use hidden or secret procedure calls, etc. to give their software an advantage, they are abusing their monopoly and therefore should be punished for it.
Remember, its not illegal to have a monopoly, but it is illegal to abuse that position.
Re:What's wrong with EU? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong with EU? (Score:2)
I am not, because I build my own computers.
Millions of others who don't know how to build a computer and aren't willing to go to some small builder for them being forced to use(or at least buy) Microsoft Windows? Yes.
Think I'm lying? Try to get a Linux home PC(or laptop) from Dell, HP, Toshiba, or Gateway.
It's known as the "Microsoft Tax" for a reason.
Re:What's wrong with EU? (Score:3, Interesting)
The EU as a government entity has the right to
require that software they purchase meet certain
terms and conditions, including interoperability.
MSFT's response regarding the publishing of their
API's and specification by way of an encumbered
AND expensive license violates the EU's stated
requirements. Nothing more.
What I DO find rather interesting is the stance
the EU has taken in regard to MSFT's monopolistic
ploy, versus the EU's apparent infatuation with
the adoption of soft
Re:If it were up to me... (Score:3, Interesting)
Great. Given their great penchant for allowing every line of their code to operate with full administrator privileges we'll shortly thereafter be able to "enjoy" the wonderful Windows experience on Linux (i.e. spyware, adware, viruses etc.)
So thanks but no thanks. Open Office, Abi Word, Koffice, Rhythmbox, Xine, Totem, Konqueror and Firefox (to name but a few) work just fine already.
Re:Not a Fan of MS but... (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft agreed to create a server interoperability licence that would allow rival makers of server software to write applications that can "achieve full interoperability" with Windows client and server operating systems on "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms".
The commission is also concerned that open source vendors are "excluded" from the licence agreement. The spokesman said it is only
Re:Not a Fan of MS but... (Score:3, Informative)
From the article, the EU doesn't want MS to release any source code. They wanted MS to release protocols in an nondiscriminatory way. MS sorta complied. They will release the protocols but will charge such a high price that any average Joe Schmo who wanted to write a app that used the protocols could not afford to even look. Also the terms of the license specifically exluded all open source. I think that the license specifically forbids
Re:Just a thought from the right... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but you're not Bill Gates. Microsoft is interested in global domination. As I pointed out in my earlier post [slashdot.org], the EU is BIGGER than the US. Why would Microsoft pull out of their biggest market? It would hurt them immensely and their shareholders certainly wouldn't like it.
Re:Just a thought from the right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because if Microsoft wants to do business anywhere they need to obey the law.
If I were Bill Gates, I would simply pull all of my product out of Europe and laugh at them.
It's rather hard to "pull out" a product which has no physical existance.
Due to the market penetration of Windows, the EU would come crawling back, begging for Windows marketing to be reins
Pot calling the kettle black? (Score:3, Insightful)
Without going to far into the text of your comment, we (in Europe) have generally the same feeling about US litigation which seems to continuously pour beyond your borders.
So my point also would be that "as a European, why should we give a flying flip what the US wants? It's not like they really have any enforcement powers beyond their borders."
(The answer of course, is that if you want to trade overseas, we have to respect the purchasing country/sta
Re:Just a thought from the right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why in the world would the EU find this to be a big problem? Unlike a "real" property (like oil), if Microsoft did something like that, the EU could simply make all Microsoft's products available as public domain. There'd be a lot of EU support vendors who could provide support too.
Companies wh
Re:Just a thought from the right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Normally I believe in a proper argument, critically deconstruct the
Re:Just a thought from the right... (Score:4, Insightful)
Due to the market penetration of Windows, the EU would come crawling back, begging for Windows marketing to be reinstated.
Any country or group of countries in their right mind would consider such a thing a virtual ATTACK on said country(ies) survival and economic prosperity, due to the monopolistic market penetration of Windows. As far as I (an American) am concerned, the countries in question would be well within their rights and responsibilities to their citizens to terminate all local copyrights, patents and trademarks owned by Microsoft, to allow the country to continue to supply itself with the dominant Microsoft software (for survival) while they work on moving everything over to OS X, Linux and other alternative software that won't allow them to be brought to their knees by a single corporation ever again.
The fact that the EU could be literally forced to come begging a single corporation to come back and do business with them after said corporation basically committed the equivalent of a terrorist attack on their member nations is exactly why monopolists cannot be allowed to abuse their monopolies, and why monopolies should be discouraged from even existing. Nothing should have that much power over the economy of an entire nation.
Do you not realize that if they have this power over the EU, they have the same power over the US? How is that acceptable just because they are an American-based company? Would it be cool if Microsoft just "pulled out" of the government software market, refused to sell to the US government and stopped giving them any service or updates? Hopefully you would be outraged at any American company that did such a thing, especially a company like Microsoft that wields monopoly power in our economy. It would essentially be an attack on the government's ability to run and protect our precious America.
The fact that you think it would be A-OK for an American company to do such a thing as long as it doesn't do it in the US, is absolutely frightening. You come off like you think God made Americans in His own image and we are the Chosen People who can do no wrong. You think any American company can go anywhere in the world and do whatever it wants without regard to local laws, and without ever being fined for breaking the law, just because it's a US-based company? And then you sit back and wonder why so much of the population of Earth hates Americans with a passion.
My basic point is that, as an American, why should we give a flying flip what the EU wants?! It's not like they really have any enforcement powers beyond their member's borders...
As Americans, "we" don't really care what the EU wants. But if you want to GO to the EU and do business IN THEIR COUNTRIES, you need to abide by their rules, just like their companies need to abide by our rules when they do business in the US. Is there something complicated about that? They aren't trying to enforce anything beyond their own borders! They are merely dictating the behavior of Microsoft's branches in their own area of the world.
In their part of the world, where Microsoft, being a multinational corporation, very much desires to continue doing business, Microsoft has been convicted of abusing its monopoly position in the market (breaking the law). They've been told to stop violating the local laws. They refused, so the EU imposed some fines and remedies. Microsoft in effect thumbed their nose at the fines and remedies imposed by the courts, so the EU is going to impose more fines, as is their right to do in their own part of the world. Again, is there something complicated here?
I always wonder how people even get ideas like yours into their heads. If you gave it just a smidgen of thought those ideas SHOULD self-destr
Re:NOT **IT'S** (Score:4, Informative)
Ooooooh, if it's meant to be possessive,
it's just I*T*S
But if it's meant to be a contraction,
it's I*T*APOSTRAPHE*S
Scallywag!
Re:Exploits (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course not. Network traffic that is hackable should be put behind firewalls. Opening the protocols simply allows other operating systems and products to use the same protocols as Windows does.
All of the network protocols that Unix/Linux uses are open to the public!
Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
Why does an American Company have to be subjected to the fines and penalties of a foreign semi-socialistic union.
Because they are not an American company, they are an International company. When in Rome, obey the Roman laws or pay the consequences. Or do you think North Korean companies should be able to do business in the U.S. but not follow any of our laws while over here?
European companies would not allow such a sanction.
Several European companies have already been given fines nearly as high as t
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
oh, and btw. the EU fines european companies all the time, it just happens that we don't have a high-profile monopolist who breaks the rules in software business over here, so you probably just didn't notice it.
Re:Make the $5millions bite (Score:4, Informative)
Great. (Score:3, Interesting)
Now you're saying Bill Gates is trying to become exempt from taxes...
If he's putting himself above royalty, we have a problem.