Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Your Rights Online

EU satisfied With Microsoft's Antitrust Plan 120

Posted by timothy from the yeah-that's-ok-then dept.
rcrc writes "According to Reuters, Microsoft's proposal to avoid paying a fine of $5 million a day has almost been approved by the European Union in a long-running antitrust case. The case deals with the interoperability between the Windows PC and servers. The next step is for the proposal to be "market tested" with other industry players before a final assessment is given by the EU."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU satisfied With Microsoft's Antitrust Plan More

EU satisfied With Microsoft's Antitrust Plan

Comments Filter:

  • Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Microsoft's "proposal to avoid paying the fine"? How is anything other than complying with the court's decision acceptable?

    If I steal a car and get a suspended sentence, then go out and steal another car, do I get to make a "proposal to avoid going to jail"?

    Microsoft broke the law. Why are they not facing the consequences of their actions? Since when do criminals get to decide how they should be punished?

    • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by lotrtrotk ( 853897 )
      Read: $$$

    • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Uruk ( 4907 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @02:04PM (#12738938)
      The fine applies if they can't come to an agreement about the way to fix the issue. The way I read the article, it's not that they are currently dodging the fine, it's that the fine doesn't apply unless a set of conditions are met, and they're trying to avoid meeting that set of conditions, by putting together a different agreement with the EU that supposedly everybody can live with.

      From the article:

      The U.S. software giant could be hit with a fine of up to $5 million a day if the European Commission concludes that its proposals would not allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PC and servers.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Spad ( 470073 )
      The fine is question was related to Microsoft's Proposal for implementing the changes that the EU requested. They had until June 1st to submit said proposal or face a "late" fine.

      They've already been fined almost 500 million Euros for their original Monopoloy conviction.

      • Re:Huh? (Score:1, Insightful)

        by alecks ( 473298 )
        Man, if I was Bill, I'd give the EU the middle finger and stop selling them my software. So it'll put a little dent in my billion dollar revenues... but fuck em. You don't like my os, don't buy it!
        • You are so the person i'd pick to run my company. So what if i'd be bankrupt in about two weeks, for hey, at least i'd still have my pride: noone would be able to say that i subjugated myself to my customers' demands.

          • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by drsmithy ( 35869 )
            So what if i'd be bankrupt in about two weeks, for hey, at least i'd still have my pride: noone would be able to say that i subjugated myself to my customers' demands.

            Customers aren't the one making the demands here, the EU is.

        • Yeah, who cares if they are a bigger overall market? Or if they're computer market is just starting to grow rapidly, like it did in the US over the past 20 years? So what if the GDP is higher than in the US?

          So what? We all know Bill Gates NEVER did this for the money. =)
        • That would be great! All of the EU being forced to go alternatives, spending billions on the switch. Almost like another 2k-problem! Just imagine all the job-opportunities for us Open Source nerds!
          • ...who would drop MS-Windows etc like a smoking potato globally if they couldn't keep their European branches updated, and the companies headquartered in Europe who would require their outliers to follow suit.

            That happy thought should sustain me through the day.

        • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by JamesTRexx ( 675890 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @04:44PM (#12740307) Journal
          If he did that MS would lose a whole lot more than just the European market. The EU would pour a lot of money into development of OSS and maybe in a year or less you'd have your "desktop" BSD and GNU/Linux. Software companies all over the world would start porting their software to OSS platforms. And at that point the rest of the world would ask themselves why'd they pay for MS software when they can get most of the same for free. Although I see this thing happening anyway, MS doesn't want to speed up the process so they comply.
        • This would do diddly-squat to hurt Europe. That's the problem with a business model based on "intellectual property": if a government doesn't support your business model, then there is very little you can do to "punish" them.

          All Europe would have to do is pass a few laws putting ALL of Microsoft's "intellectual property" into the public domain, including any future updates that Microsoft makes in other countries (and make it legal for anyone in Europe to get cracked/stolen versions of those updates). There
          • "Intellectual Property" - or in other words, an idea - is only the origin (voir: inspiration) for any product. The rest is mechanics and usability. A lacking of one or the other results in a crappy product. Period. The government may call a company's cards instead of "playing bluff" like the rest of us, but the government's actions on the product changes nothing about what the product is itself.

            I do think that the European government is off the mark though - they shouldn't be pounding one software shipping

            • The government may call a company's cards instead of "playing bluff" like the rest of us, but the government's actions on the product changes nothing about what the product is itself.

              I'm not really sure what you're talking about. "Intellectual property" is not a product in any real sense of the word. It can be treated as a "product" only because the governments are enforcing laws which make control of "intellectual property" somewhat like a real thing.

              If a government does not enforce such laws, then the

              • I totally agree with you, and tried stating the same in my post - I'm sorry if it didn't come through clearly. No-one can protect an idea if it remains only an idea for sure.
        • If there was any threat to their economy, the EU countries can void MS copyright, and allow any local company to copy and distribute MS products without paying Bill Gates.

          Governments make the laws, and MS has copyright protection only because governments consider it good for their economy. And without copyright protection MS doesn't really have anything at all.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)

      by dwlovell ( 815091 )
      Laws are not always clear. Thats why a judge's job is to intepret a law's meaning as it applies to a specific case. (Legislators make laws, judges interpret them, and the police enforces them).

      So some company is engaging in action X that they dont believe breaks the law by their interpretation. You cry fowl and say it is breaking the law by your interpretation. So you file a lawsuit to have a judge determine the law's meaning for this situation. Even if the judge sides with your interpretation, that doesn'
    • If I steal a car and get a suspended sentence, then go out and steal another car, do I get to make a "proposal to avoid going to jail"?

      Off-topic from the article, but yes you do get to make a proposal to avoid going to jail. It's called a plea bargain; for example you could reach an agreement with the prosecuting attorney that you will have a suspended license for a couple years and serve x hours of community service along with going to remedial treatment in exchange for another suspended sentence. Facing
  • even though the sticky question of "open source" licenses was not fully resolved.
    Right, it sure isn't resolved at all!

    "..work group server developers interested in receiving interoperability information from Microsoft will be able to develop and sell their products on a global basis.."
    Major problem with this: this is at cost, and with objectionable terms.

    Sticky question indeed.
  • Microsoft is *almost* [slashdot.org] committed to open source.

    What's this almost stuff? I smell a stall tactic...

  • I'm not trying to troll but I've not heard of this story and the article didn't offer much insight. How did this come about, why is Microsoft in court for not providing interoptability with some technologies? If someone could explain the situation that'd be great, thanks. :]
    • IIRC they were found guilty of violating anti-monopoly laws (using MS Windows to push another monopoly using WMP) and one of their punishments is to allow further integration by releasing documentation to allow this.

  • Good Timing (Score:3, Funny)

    by syntap ( 242090 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @01:55PM (#12738843)
    I guess it is pretty smart to get all of the Microsoft Antitrust issues worked out while the EU still exists in present form. Otherwise Microsoft's settlement may have to be made in half Lira, half Euro.
    • I guess it is pretty smart to get all of the Microsoft Antitrust issues worked out while the EU still exists in present form.

      And I consider it pretty unsmart of the EU to accept such a deal before July 10th. The EU is really not in a position to afford a third No, especially not from Juncker's home country...

    • I guess it is pretty smart to get all of the Microsoft Antitrust issues worked out while the EU still exists in present form. Otherwise Microsoft's settlement may have to be made in half Lira, half Euro.

      The European Monetary Union is totally unaffected by all the EU constitution process. The only possible impact is in countries proposed for inclusion, namely Turkey. So, the entire fallout from this is that nothing changed except people who live there said "Slow Down!".

      Don't believe the FUD.

  • Industry Abuse (Score:5, Funny)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Monday June 06, 2005 @02:02PM (#12738911)


    The next step is for the proposal to be "market tested" with other industry players before a final assessment is given by the EU.

    (Some time in the future...)


    EU: OK...our market testing period is over....what do you say, other industry players?

    Other Industry Players: (cringing under a withering stare from Microsoft) Oh yes...the proposal is very reasonable...most acceptable...

    EU: Are you OK? What happened to your face?

    M$: He fell down some stairs.

    OIP: (stammering) I fell down some stairs.

    ^_^

  • FFS (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 )
    Look, we have them over a barrel, fine the bastards and get it over with.

    Hell while we're at it lets take them to court over using IE inbuilt into the OS as proof of killing other browsers chances.

    Even if they don't get done for it they will be forced to defend other browsers which would be great to see.
    • One problem: There's at least one browser gaining marketshare while IE's market share is slipping. Microsoft would point this out in any court case. They are trying to hammer out a decent upgrade with IE7 afterall. IE7 will probably be more of an upgrade than anything that's come out of the IE dev team since the move from IE3 to IE4. This is all thanks to competition (Firefox).
    • Don't worry about it. If the EU are "almost" satisfied with Microsoft's proposals they can explain to them that they're "almost" having second thoughts about enforcing the fine.

  • Clarifying Register article (Score:5, Informative)

    by MathFox ( 686808 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @02:04PM (#12738941)
    The Register has an interesting article [theregister.co.uk] with a quote from the EU commissioner:
    "I remain determined to ensure that all elements of the Decision are properly implemented. This includes the ability for developers of open source software to take advantage of the remedy."
    So, MS's problems are not over yet!
    • Not really. MS and the EC have agreed to let the Court of the First Instance decide whether mandating that open source implementations be possible is permissible, or if that would constitute an impermissible taking. In fact, that's basically the Commission caving to reality; if they'd mandated that, Microsoft would have gone back to the Court and asked that the whole package be set aside pending the Court's decision, and, this time, they'd have won the delay. This way, at least, the Commission gets somet

      • The release of an open source implementation of any of these protocols would constitute irremediable harm

        How, exactly, do you conclude this? If opening the specs doesn't do irremediable harm, and letting people write code to the specs doesn't do irremediable harm, and letting them sell the software they write (or, for that matter, give it away) doesn't do irremediable harm, how exactly does the release of said code under a F/OS licence do additional irremediable harm?

        Surely you aren't claiming the G

        • The release of an open source implementation of any of these protocols would constitute irremediable harm

          How, exactly, do you conclude this?

          If you have a license to write code based on a certain protocol and to distribute compiled code based on that knowledge, then someone seeking to implement the protocol still needs to reverse engineer the communication between client and server. If the source to that application is distributed, however, then it can be used as a template by those who want to impleme

          • If you have a license to write code based on a certain protocol and to distribute compiled code based on that knowledge, then someone seeking to implement the protocol still needs to reverse engineer the communication between client and server. If the source to that application is distributed, however, then it can be used as a template by those who want to implement the protocol without paying the license fee, which, at least in principle, compensates Microsoft for the use of the protocol.

            But the whol

            • Sorry, Markus, I know you're drooling over this, but this is simply stupid.

              And as for [Microsoft] deserving compensation, this is supposed to be a punishment

              No. The fine was punishment. The rest of the order is an attempt to create competition going forward. The EC is going to try to get zero-cost licensing for "non innovative" (their words) features, but I'm really dubious about that.

              What kind of bizarro world is this? One where the EV wants a bird in the hand. If they ask for too much from MS...we

              • Sorry, Markus, I know you're drooling over this, but this is simply stupid.

                I don't know how to respond to this for the simple reason I don't have any idea what it means.

                No. The fine was punishment. The rest of the order is an attempt to create competition going forward. The EC is going to try to get zero-cost licensing for "non innovative" (their words) features, but I'm really dubious about that.

                I will grant that, as a Microsoft employee [slashdot.org], you have probably been following this in more detail th

                • This is where you're wrong:

                  And as for the retraction strawman--that at some point you may get a reversal and demand that the code be removed--the exact same logic appiles to F/OSS-licenced software: code has been removed from F/OSS in exactly this sort of situation in the past, and there's no reason to believe it won't be in the future.

                  The release of the code itself is an irrevocable step. Once it is out there and copied, there's no tracking its spread -- the algorithms behind the behavior become availab


                  • I see. So Microsoft is willing to graciously accept the court's ruling and open its APIs, provided that people don't learn to use them, or do anything that would allow other to learn to use them.

                    Personally, I'd call that non-complience.

                    --MarkusQ

    • Remember, GPL software is a subset of open source software ... Their license doesn't have to be GPL compatible.

  • Slap on the wrist (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Monday June 06, 2005 @02:15PM (#12739054) Homepage
    But the EU executive voiced satisfaction with Microsoft's proposed solution -- even though the sticky question of "open source" licenses was not fully resolved -- and said the plan would now be put to industry peers for their opinion.
    1. Gradually and systematically remove all your competitors from the market, except the open source ones.
    2. Gain freedom from regulators by agreeing to cooperate with your competitors, except the open source ones.
    3. ???
    4. Profit
    The ???, in case you're wondering, stands for "artificial barriers to entry".

    I can only hope they count SUSE as an "industry peer"...

  • How much do you want to bet.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by suman28 ( 558822 ) <{moc.liamtoh} {ta} {82namus}> on Monday June 06, 2005 @02:18PM (#12739083)
    "I remain determined to ensure that all elements of the Decision are properly implemented. This includes the ability for developers of open source software to take advantage of the remedy." How much do you want to bet that this issue will slowly be pushed into the background and eventually disappear? Microsoft has always found a way out of such situations.
    • How much do you want to bet that this issue will slowly be pushed into the background and eventually disappear? Microsoft has always found a way out of such situations.

      But at some point, someone will want to be made (somewhat) famous as the person who stood up to Microsoft. The evil US Corporation. Lots of people have backed down, few have prevailed. I would think that in and of itself, that would be a pretty big motivator.

      • But at some point, someone will want to be made (somewhat) famous as the person who stood up to Microsoft. The evil US Corporation. Lots of people have backed down, few have prevailed. I would think that in and of itself, that would be a pretty big motivator.

        Isn't this why Yoda said that he had failed and had to go into exile?
    • I take the bet. Be sure that it won't. For one simple reason: there are smart and well-educated people at the EC MTF which definetely won't "forget" about it. Trust me on that one. You even have the Commissioner (head of anti-turst authorities all over Europe) specifically claiming it.

      On the other hand the probability that the European Court buys the "trade secret/valuable intellectual property" argument and fails to get the "interoperability with the only remaining competitor" one is definetely positive.

  • great (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cahiha ( 873942 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @02:35PM (#12739228)
    But the EU executive voiced satisfaction with Microsoft's proposed solution -- even though the sticky question of "open source" licenses was not fully resolved -- and said the plan would now be put to industry peers for their opinion.

    Uh, huh. Those "industry peers" are likely still companies wedded to proprietary software. Microsoft loves to put out licenses that permit commercial implementations (even royalty-free) but are incompatible with open source. "Industry peers" are not the right group to ask--legislators need to think for themselves.
    • legislators need to think for themselves.

      How many legislators in ANY country know the first thing about any given industry?

      Usually none. So they do what seems sensible - go speak to the experts in that industry. Who are the experts?

      Generally the group who is most persuasive at convincing the legislators that they're the experts.
  • At that rate Microsoft will run out of cash in 2037! Sell! Sell!

  • Communication standard are like language (Score:3, Interesting)

    by what about ( 730877 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @03:39PM (#12739674) Homepage

    What would you think if some big company asked you to "licence" the right to talk English, or French, or Chineese ?

    Well, this is what Microsoft is doing. You want to talk with Microsoft ? then you have to "licence".

    Even better similarity. A Company creates a new language and slowly have half of the world speak it. For the other half of the world you have to "licence" the fact that you can talk that new language.

    • What would you think if some big company asked you to "licence" the right to talk English, or French, or Chineese ?

      Well, English is Open Source with many homes, French is BSD with the official provider the Academie Francaise (and some variants in Canada etc), and Chinese is a bunch of languages - Mandarin for example is one.

  • Microsofts Proposal (Score:3, Funny)

    by DrugCheese ( 266151 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @04:08PM (#12739879)
    You know it's not fair if Microsoft proposed it.

  • The case deals with the interoperability between the Windows PC and servers. The next step is for the proposal to be "market tested" with other industry players before a final assessment is given by the EU."

    Clever EU. To monitor, with other industry players, the compliance. Unlike in the US where it was pretty much business as usual once everyone left the court house.

    • How is this clever? The industry players they monitor are Microsoft's competitors. You think they're ever going to be happy until they get a huge advantage over Microsoft? Real Networks for example, sure Microsoft ships Windows with Media Player, but it's not like Real's product would have beaten it anyway. Real Player is an ad-ridden piece of crap in comparison.

      At least in the US it's understood that when you have a REAL free market economy, you have to allow for winners from time to time. It's not like M

  • EU Satisfied???? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Inzkeeper ( 767071 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @06:30PM (#12741496) Journal
    The article title is too funny!
    Compare that to other news sites:
    TheReg/Tom's: MS and EU inch towards agreement
    InternetNews: Microsoft And Europe Getting Closer
    Groklaw: Microsoft is still sparring with the EU Commission

    Does that sound like the EU is satisfied?
    [IRONY] What kinda pro-MS rag is this?! [/IRONY]
  • This is unacceptable. In my opinion, the EU should fine Microsoft double their daily profits each day, and do the following with the money:
    • Distribute half of it directly to a variety of free software projects that will benefit all of Europe.
    • Use the other half to buy enormous advertising campaigns all over the world in favor of free software and against proprietary software in general and Microsoft software specifically.
    That would be an acceptable alternative.
    • Why does that sound fair? Why should the EU be able to fine it for a % of its world profts? Maybe the European profits...

      Should China now decide that they don't agree with having a sound player in the computer and be able to charge a % of the world profits?

      How about when Australia decides it doesn't like having a picture viewer in the operating system?
      • Maybe the European profits..

        You don't understand corporate accounting. Global companies (like Microsoft) can pretty much shift around their "money" at will over the world. If they'd get a big fine on "European profits", Microsoft will just make sure the official reports state that they made no profit (or even better a loss) in the European sector. Added bonus: "See, we are really hurt by your sanctions... It's bad for the European economy".

        That's why "World Profits".

    • Then Microsoft can release their new ad campaign:
      Remember kids, when you program open source, you're programming COMMUNISM.. which would be exactly what your proposal would amount to.
  • Anybody have some thoughts on this what might mean for projects like Samba and Samba-tng? It seems like the article made a subtle reference to them in noting Microsoft's aversion to the code they make available ending up in open source projects. I've got a lot win2k3 servers I'd like to replace with Samba if they ever become fully functional as domain controllers within Active Directory. Does this improve the chance of that happening?
  • IN SOVIET RUSSIA, Microsoft satisfies eYOU.

Slashdot Top Deals

In order to dial out, it is necessary to broaden one's dimension.

Close