Microsoft Set To Be Fined $2.4M a Day 777
Nexum writes "The BBC is reporting on a European Union threat to fine Microsoft up to $2.4m a day for their non-compliance with the European Commission's demand that Windows be opened up. Back in March 2004 Microsoft was ordered to open up its Windows operating system by way of making documentation available that would assist work on interoperability with other systems, specifically: 'non-Microsoft work group servers [should be able to] achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers'. According to the article, Brussels has found MS to have not complied with the ruling, and, sounding somewhat exasperated, EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes has given MS a 5 week deadline before the $2.4m/a day fines begin."
Re:drop in the ocean (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Just a question (Score:5, Informative)
What information do they actually need? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wait what!? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:this is stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Of course you would. This would be following:
Security... well see you later!
Interoperability... well see you later!
Open standards... well see you later!
Competitive prices... well see you later!
Eventually all this will (if it hasnt already) bite them serverly in the ass. Losing the Europe market isn't an option. Its huge. The stockholders would get management replaced if they pulled a stunt like that. Not to mention the EU is right and is doing what America is unable or unwilling to do herself.
Re:Wait what!? (Score:2, Informative)
Before the Treaty of Rome, 25 March 1957... um, no.
Re:Just dumb (Score:3, Informative)
On this side of the pond we're very big on trying to protect consumers from extorsionist behaviour by companies in monopoly positions, busting cartels, punishing companies that lie to their customers, avoiding overuse of shared resources (for example the environment), that kind of thing.
No worries though - i believe we are moving in the direction of the american model of "voluntary" industry regulations and corporate buying of legislation.
Re:Just a question (Score:4, Informative)
Report here. [microsoft.com]
On 2.4M/day in a month, thats 72M which is 7% of 1 billion. I think MS will definitely feel it. The shareholders are not going to let 7% of profits go to a fine.
So, like what a previous poster said, the main question will be is 7% of profits greater than the cost of opening up or not?
Re:End of proprietary code? (Score:5, Informative)
The market does want that, but when there's an 800lbs gorilla in the market, the market no longer works as intended. That's what being a monopoly is all about - shutting down the forces that makes a free market work. Something needs to negate that influence to jump-start an active and free market again. In this case, the European Commission is doing that.
Re:The trick (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, the secret to their success is mostly the consistant interface - I mean any give Linux desktop is as easy to LEARN to use as a Windows desktop (for people starting out cold with no preconceptions of how it should be), but the Windows 95 gui is consistant everywhere you go. Go into any office and sit down at any machine and things will be where you learned they will be. Try that with any given Linux box and odds are each one will be customized differently, or each corporation will have a 'standard' desktop different from other corporations so it is more difficult for an accountant to take his templates from one to another and be instantly productive with a spreadsheet and a printer.
Re:drop in the ocean (Score:2, Informative)
And of course, you were trolling as nowhere was it stated the MS would have to "support" any 3rd party.
Re:The trick (Score:3, Informative)
1) People don't like to "dabble" very much. They want to just be able to use it. Some may argue that our history/education with Windows is what gives that OS the edge when it comes to usability (compared to Linux), but I would argue that it's just plain easier to use than Linux. Linux is not even in the same league as Windows or OSX when it comes to regular users doing normal things on their computers.
2) People don't want to learn an OS or customize it to make it work for them. They don't mind (too much) learning the *application* (Photoshop, Word, whatever) because that's what that is considered productive - "I made a picture", "I typed an email". Learning an OS doesn't give regular users any satisfaction at all.
I look forward to the day when geeks like us all finally figure out that learning an OS isn't fun/rewarding/useful for 99% of the population. Telling regular people to read the HOWTO or "RTFM" or whatever is not productive.
I think you should accept that Linux *is* hard compared to the alternatives available today. Once you accept that, you can move forward and help the Linux community make it less hard by getting involved...
Re:bad ruling. (Score:5, Informative)
This is equal to a habitual speeder getting pulled over for the 10th time in a month, and the penalty is his wife can no longer work. The justification; she makes allot of money and bought him the car. Should we tell MS that they can no longer sell Office unless they give Open Office their source code too?
Wow, where to begin. MS is one legal entity called a corporation, not two individuals. This is a lot more like restricting a child molester out on parole from going near playgrounds. MS has illegally used their monopoly multiple times. Now the courts have forbidden them from activities that could lead them to abuse it again. It sounds pretty reasonable to me. If MS wants their server and other operations legally separate they can just make them separate corporations. I'm all for splitting up MS and letting them actually compete.
As to the source code, you're mistaking EU ruling. They order them to open up the protocols and make them interoperable, not to open the source code. That is like saying they have to open up the .doc spec after abusing their monopoly to make .doc the default specification. It is not like saying they have to open up the source to Word. The only issue is MS won't release the spec, and what they have released is not what they are actually using. After so many times of them lying and giving a spec that is not the real spec, access to the source code may be the only way anyone can determine what the real spec is.
MS server api/code being required to be exposed is border line criminal in my opinion. This is MS IP (good or bad it's theirs), and forcing an Open Source model on the world is a dangerous road... regardless of your opinion on OSS.
Where do you get this crap? Opening an API is not open sourcing the code that implements an API. It is documenting what is used and making sure others can use it equally. It is akin to one company having a monopoly on cars, and then switching all their cars to use a non-standard fuel. The courts just said they have to tell everyone what the specifications for the fuel are (not even the formula for it or the process used to make it) so that they can't use that monopoly to take over the fuel market. I hope you are being paid to spread this FUD. If MS does not want to be punished they shouldn't break the bloody law.
This is an attempt to throw a bone at competitors of Microsoft...
This is an attempt to stop MS from illegally putting more people, with better products, and who actually innovate, out of business.
The fact that the foes of Microsoft resort to beating them on the server front like this just goes to show you that MS really has made a good product with Windows 2003.
No, the fact that MS is gaining market share with such an obviously inferior product is what prompted this response.
The cold hard truth is that this has very little to do with MS or monopolies. The EU is just trying to hurt the US economy by hurting the largest American company.
I doubt it, or they would be picking on a lot more corporations. Nope this is about power, and making sure foreign companies don't put local ones out of business by breaking the laws.
MS chose to break the law as part of their business model. They have a gajillion lawyers and know full well when they are breaking the law. They have just gambled that it will be more profitable to break the law and pay any fines and settlements that result than it will be to comply with the law. So far they have been completely correct in this gamble and it has paid off amazingly well. Even with a few million dollars a day in fines they will still be making money in Europe, thus further justifying their business plan. This tells corporations around the world something most of them already know. Laws are an inconvenience for corporations, not a deal breaker. Crime pays, especially when it is on a very large scale that allows you to bribe corrupt politicians left and right. Additionally, you can get sympathy from uneducated, ignorant, nationalists who are willing to support breaking crimes in other countries. Brilliant!
Re:Just a math question (Score:1, Informative)
I know my math sucks but... 2,400,000 x 365 = 876,000,000 thats not "over a billion" Even if you add the "it already starts out over 100 million." its 976,000,000, still 24,000,000 short of a Billion.
Re:drop in the ocean (Score:3, Informative)
Do you really think the EU would fine joe sixPACK Inc. $2.4M *a* *day*
Re:Just a question (Score:3, Informative)