Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Fails to Comply With EU Requirements
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:14 AM
from the close-but-no-cigar dept.
from the close-but-no-cigar dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Like Larry Flynt (Score:5, Insightful)
15 years.
The EU would have to charge them $50 million a day before they'd really
care.
$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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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?
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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."
Parent
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.
Parent
Interesting.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Is that the case? I can't find anything suggesting that the EU "named names" by saying the GPL or any specific license.
Anyone have any more insight? Did the EU really order MS to be compatible in this regard with a specific license, or is this just a poorly worded writeup (or is it just me)?
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.
Parent
$5m a day? (Score:5, Funny)
Sure they need to comply. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
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.
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: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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Pot calling Kettle Black (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent