EU Launches Yet Another Antitrust Probe Into Microsoft

Connor writes "The EU has announced a new wide-ranging antitrust probe into Microsoft's practices of bundling software with Windows, as well as whether its products interoperate sufficiently with competitors' products. 'The first area of investigation will concern interoperability of some of Microsoft's products, including Office 2007, the .NET Framework, and some of Microsoft's server products.' The other prong of the investigation is a response to Opera's antitrust complaint, but will look at other products, too. 'The Commission will also look at desktop search and Windows Live as well in addition to other products. The EC says that its investigation will "focus on allegations that a range of products have been unlawfully tied to sales of Microsoft's dominant operating system."'"

Another one?

[calebt3]

Can anybody tell me what MS has actually been forced to do as a result of anti-trust lawsuits? I don't mean what they have been told to do but rather what they were forced to follow through with. IIRC, they still haven't paid a hefty fine imposed by the EU a long time ago.

Waiting for the diplomats.

[seeker_1us]

How long is it going to be before Bush sends US diplomats to intervene on Microsoft's behalf [infoworld.com] again?

Re:Another one?

[Scarblac]

They paid about 500 million euro in 2004, while they were still appealing the decision. Their last appeal was turned down last year.

Also, they made available the specs for the SMB protocol, which the Samba team bought (for about $14k).

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[FredFredrickson]

If toyota makes cars, but then decides they want to engineer their own CD players and install them as stock on all their cars, is it against sony, because people will most likely just use the stock cd player? Goodness knows there are manufacturers who make steering-wheel covers who'd be pissed if toyota sent out their cars with great steering wheel covers too.

What microsoft is doing is covering the bases. Yeah, NERO's pissed when MS new OS has burning capabilities in it, but lets face it, interfacing with hardware (a technology like DVD-RW is getting older every day) is a primary function that I'd wonder WHY the OS doesn't already do that. If I bought a computer with no web browser, I couldn't go get opera and install it. It's not like Windows comes with Office- that'd be nice. I just think it's a bunch of whiney babies. Don't like it? Buy a mac!

My guess is that the people here complaining probably already have a mac, which is why I got modded down. I like microsoft. There I said it. Don't mark me Flamebait cause I have an opinion that MAC fanboys don't share with me.

Re:Another one?

[KokorHekkus]

The 2003 fine was paid during 2004 (http://www.news.com/2100-1014_3-5255715.html [news.com]). The other additional fines most likely have been as well since Microsoft does have a business presence in Europe via Microsoft EMEA located in Ireland I belive (EMEA stands for Europe, Middle-East, Africa). Should the boardmembers refuse to pay then that would land them in court and result in possible personal punishments. No sane business professional would do that no matter how many chairs are thrown on the other side of the atlantic.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[taniwha]

nothing - so long as in the process you are not leveraging a monopoly - the problem isn't including apps, it's using your OS monopoly to out-compete other app vendors

Re:The World

[BrentH]

Damn, does the FUD never end? A small search on Google [google.nl] demonstrates that the EU fines domesitc industries at least as much as foreign ones (I read the official numbers ones, can't find the source now, but most 'income' was from domestic corporations). Just because Spanish Telecom, Fujifilm and Siemens don't reach the/your news, doesn't mean they're fined hundreds of millions of euros.

Re:.NET Framework?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to assume everyone is on the client side. In either case:

Bundling .NET server stuff with Windows Server inhibits competitors like ColdFusion (Adobe), PHP (OSS), JSP (Sun) etc.
Bundling .NET client stuff with Windows XP/Vista inhibits competitors like Qt (Trolltech), Gtk (OSS), Java (Sun) etc.

Re:Good EU!

[RobBebop]

They offer you the chance to send them $2 in exchange for mailing you a CDs with their release on it. This is "selling it".

Furthermore, they would be within the scope of the license to package and charge you to download their distribution (as long as your payment included the right to obtain source code).

What they would NOT be able to do, is stop somebody from setting up an FTP site and giving away the copy they bought to everybody and anybody who wanted it. Thus, Red Hat users can get CentOS instead of purchasing the "Official" releases of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Re:Whats wrong with including apps anyways?

[themacks]

Have you ever tried to uninstall IE? or WMP? Its rather difficult, pretty much locked in. It would be acceptable if OEMs could select what software to include. Instead of being forced to use the Microsoft version. Thats how they use their monopoly.

Re:I don't get it...

[howlingmadhowie]

opera is a norwegian company. norway is not a part of the eu

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Uh, if Microsoft had a monopoly on web browsers, or if the existence of IE caused Mozilla-based browsers (or others) not to work, then you might have a point.

Sigh, not again. How many bloody times do I have to explain it. Antitrust law makes bundling a monopolized product with a product in another market. The US, EU and several other jurisdictions have already convicted MS of abusing their monopoly in the desktop OS market, thus they legally have a monopoly in the desktop OS market. They bundled IE with that monopolized product. This is the same as someone with a monopoly in the car business bundling car accessories.

Except that, once again, this wasn't the real problem. Microsoft was come down on not because the bundled a browser, but because they forced OEMs to not bundle other browsers. Which, again, was caused primarily by Microsoft refusing to allow OEMs to bundle other browsers - not even instead of IE, but in addition to it.

That's just exacerbating the abuse. MS has already been convicted of bundling IE, which is illegal all by itself.

Bundling is not tying, because force is absent.

Bundling is the very first example of tying listed in US antitrust law and is the most common form of antitrust abuse prosecuted. Please learn the facts rather than arguing what you wish was true.

Bundling is not tying in the absence of pricing that prevents sales by an equally efficient competitor.

MS sells a bundle which includes both Windows and IE. Some of that money goes to develop IE. Users don't have the option of buying just Windows for a price that is lower than the bundle. Thus, users are forced to buy IE, rather than saving that money and buying a competing offering.

Monopoly leverage, using a monopoly to try to gain a monopoly in another area, is also not a violation of the Sherman act;

No it is a violation of the Clayton act. MS has already been convicted by the US on this count, how can you claim it isn't illegal?

The only web browser-producing "competitor" to Microsoft whose efficiency (in that market alone, naturally) even approached Microsoft's was Netscape, and they were giving the browser away. Thus, no sales were prevented.

Wrong, direct sales are not the only way to cause financial harm. For example, Firefox is paid for directing users to Google. They are paid less because of MS's actions using their monopoly to push IE.

In fact, Netscape was dumping their product on the market, by giving it away at a price substantially lower than the production cost, in order to gain purchase against IE.

It doesn't matter because Netscape didn't have a monopoly and aren't relevant. This is about what MS is doing today to affect the market.

Sigh, you are the worst MS apologist ever. You'll take any farfetched claim and make it, regardless of the facts. Sad.

Re:Apple's next

[GrahamCox]

I would bet money that WMP doesn't [work with Macs].

You lose: Windows media components for Mac [microsoft.com]

Re:This is stupid

[pizzach]

Number 4. LINUX AND OSX!!!! It's not like Windows is the only game in town...it is perhaps for gaming, but that is not Microsoft's fault...you wouldn't try to sue Sony because your PS3 can't play an Amiga game, would you?

It's a little bit more fault than you might think. Making windows the only game in town to play games on has long been Microsoft's strategy.

1. DirectX was made to pull people away from OpenGL which makes games MUCH harder to port. To accomplish making people use DirectX, the made Microsoft make the DirectX tools much better and more complete than using OpenGL-mabobs.

2. Microsoft bought the last great Mac Developer Bungie.

3. The Xbox was originally made to funnel developers to Windows.

4. I hate lists that I can't think of more than three things.

Re:I don't get it...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So far as I know, only a few browsers are completely standards compliant.

No, I doubt any browser is, but have you ever done any Web development? If you create pages based upon the standards and then test 99% of the time it will work just fine in every browser except IE, where it never works. MS doesn't even try and the leaked internal e-mails show that this is intentional.

...with the announcement that IE 8 should be ACID 2 compliant, that argument starts to fail. Should IE be allowed to be bundled if it passes that test?

You're completely misconstruing what the ACID-2 test is. It is not a general compliance test for Web standards. It is an edge case test, meant to be used to see if a compliant browser correctly handles some weird cases and handles broken content according to the standard for how broken things are to be handled. One can easily create a browser which passes the ACID-2 test but which fails on a large percentage of common, standards compliant pages. It was not designed to "prove" you follow standards but to help browser developers test some parts of the standard that were often broken even on largely compliant browsers.

Even if IE 8 were to conform to standards in every way, that is no guarantee that MS won't intentionally break them again in IE 9 and does nothing to redress the damage they've done in the intervening decade.

Should IE be allowed to be bundled if it passes that test? If not, then why?

No. Because the Acid-2 test is not comprehensive compliance test. Also because compliance is not the only factor in which browsers are different. Imagine for a moment IE 5 had been completely compliant, and bundled. It still doesn't have tabs and is inferior in many ways (no tabs, no spellcheck, no ad blocker) to other, competing browsers, but it still would dominate that market. When an inferior product wins market share over a superior one, just because it is bundled with something monopolized, that market is broken. It isn't fair to consumers or other browser developers.

Forcing MS to comply with standards and forcing them to unbundle IE would be about the minimum it would take to level the playing field again.

Because a browser should be considered an after market add on?

Because there was an existing, healthy market for that product before MS introduced their bundled product. That's the law. MS knew it before they broke the law, but they gambled that they'd make more money breaking the law and paying the fines than they would complying... and so far they've been right. Breaking the law pays, because US politicians are easily and legally bribed via lobbying.

Please! Browsers are as integral to computing now as anything else is.

Which is why it is important to make sure the market is a healthy, capitalist free market that rewards innovation. How exactly would removing IE from Windows be unfair? People can still download it if they want. OEMs like Dell can still pre-install it if they want. All it does is level the playing field so that IE has to compete based upon how good it is, not upon the fact that Microsoft also makes Windows and can abuse that fact. Really, if IE is a good product, it will retain its market share. If it sucks, it will lose market share... just like every other product. This not only rewards other companies, but gives MS incentive to make IE better. How can you have a problem with that?

However, the majority of stories coming out of the EU regarding monopoly investigations pertains to MS.

MS is the most prodigious antitrust abuser since Bell. The EU is also investigating Apple for their iPod tie ins and dozens of other companies we've never heard of because we don't pay attention to those markets. Any competent economist will tell you the only way to fix MS's absurd amount of abuse is to break them up, but the EU has treated them with k

Re:Another one?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

This is such a crock of you know what.

I disagree.

The EU constantly picks on Microsoft because it's a company we love to hate and they have deep pockets.

No they prosecute MS because MS constantly breaks the law and other companies complain to them, knowing the US courts have been paid off.

What about Apple? I mean, isn't SpotLight "bundled" as part of Leopard?

Sure it is, but "bundling" isn't illegal in and of itself. Leveraging a monopoly in one market into another market is illegal and if you have a monopoly, bundling is one way to do it. Apple doesn't even compete in the desktop OS market, since they refuse to sell OS X to Dell or any other OEM. Apple does compete in the "desktop computer system" market against Dell and HP and Sony, but they certainly don't have a monopoly there, so there is no way such bundling can be illegal.

Why aren't they filing probes against an even bigger brother??

That shows what you know. The EU does have an ongoing probe against Apple, not for their OS since it is not a monopoly, but with regards to their iPod line, which at 70% is close to being a monopoly on portable digital music players. If they decide Apple has enough influence, they will charge Apple for bundling the iTunes software with iPods and for tying it to the iTunes store.

The EU investigates lots of companies for antitrust abuse. If you her about MS being charged more often their are two reasons, one it is more likely to be reported in the news sites you read, and two, MS has built their entire business model on breaking antitrust law and hoping the fines are smaller than the money it makes them.

Re:Oh, No, Not again!

[Daniel Phillips]

your assertion that you can simply remove Firefox from Ubuntu Desktop is incorrect. Oh, you can remove it... but you must remove the package 'ubuntu-desktop', which depends on firefox! This will result in autoremoval of a lot of other packages (if you are doing autoremoval) and the failure to track some updates to ubuntu.

If so, then that is just boneheaded packaging. I can remove Iceweasel (aka Firefox) from Debian Sid just fine.

sudo apt-get remove iceweasel
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
    iceweasel iceweasel-gnome-support
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 2 to remove and 245 not upgraded.
Need to get 0B of archives.
After unpacking 27.5MB disk space will be freed.