Microsoft Accuses European Union of Collusion

GarbagePailKid wrote to mention the news that Microsoft has filed a formal complaint alleging that the EU colluded with company rivals and hid critical documents during the EU regulation hearings. According to Microsoft: "While the documents provided do not include the direct correspondence between the commission and its technical experts, they show that the commission, the trustee, and Microsoft's adversaries were secretly collaborating throughout the fall of 2005 in a manner inconsistent with the commission's role as neutral regulator and the Trustee's role as independent monitor..."

This Just In:

Emperor Palpatine Accuses Jedi Council Of Collusion!

Film at 11!

Re:This Just In:

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Re:Next:

Next: GWB says EU possesses weapons of mass destruction

Yeah, but that would be true.

MS blames everyone else.

This is more of the same. Microsoft doesn't seem to have enough fingers to point for blame, of course, except for at anyone but themselves.

A previous slashdot thread discussed Microsoft's "published" documents [slashdot.org] whereby Microsoft, unsuccessful in their attempts to win over the European Union, instead published their documentation and responses, trying to drum up public support for their ostensible compliance.

Now Microsoft wants to blame the EU and other companies for colluding against them. Poppycock! There would be almost no other way to define the complaint... it basically is about other companies, and Microsoft's tactics in that marketplace. Yes, the EU plays the heavy here, but it is not in cahoots with the other companies.

Microsoft was asked to provide API documentation, they instead offered to license their source (with restrictions), which is in no way the same thing and is an inappropriate substitute.

Of course the EU is going to be discussing this with other companies -- the other companies are the ones injured in this action, and their observations are key in determining real Microsoft compliance.

Re:MS blames everyone else.

Of course Microsoft blames everyone else.... Everyone else blames Microsoft. Regardless of the merits of the EU's case against MS, it's important that the trial be fair and appropriately handled and, if Microsoft has reasonable evidence to the point, they have the right to claim damages.

Re:MS blames everyone else.

if Microsoft has reasonable evidence to the point...

'IF' being the operative word. Some other IF's of note...

IF Microsoft did nothing wrong
IF Microsoft is not a monopoly
IF microsoft did not use strong arm tactics
IF Microsoft did use illegal business pratic

Re:MS blames everyone else.

"...if Microsoft has reasonable evidence to the point, they have the right to claim damages."

I think Microsoft should stand up for itself and show the EU weenies what's what by pulling all Microsoft software off the European market. They could then delive

Re:You forget ...

Slashdot has always been anti-MS, often regardless of actual merit.

Probably because of the number of slashdotters (vs the general public) who actually understand the industry, and/or work in it.

The fact that Microsoft is apparently incapable of documenting their interfaces is symptomatic of the development "methodology" within MS, and the quality of their product (bugs? viruses? etc) is another symptom. The misery that their whale dreck has caused many said slashdotters is the main reason for said anti-MS sentiment -- and actually that has everything to do with actual merit.

Re:MS blames everyone else.

What's interesting about this is MS's increasingly aggressive stance towards the Commission. There seems to be some tension between the stance taken by the Commission on software patents (where McCreavy in particular is seen to be strongly influenced by MS) and these anti-monopolistic actions.

One wonders if an antagonistic relationship will be beneficial to our favourite monopolist in the long run... Is this a sign of desperation or of arrogance?

Re:MS blames everyone else.

Perhaps they [MS] can't see it ever really working out well long term, so they're just using delaying tacktics to put off the inevitable?

Re:MS blames everyone else.

What is the worst the EU can do beyond making noise and sending threatening letters ?

Support open document formats?
Promote free software procurement policies?
Permanently block software patents?
Implement more stringent anti-monopoly measures?

That's just off

Re:MS blames everyone else.

All of these things would hurt Microsoft:

Support open document formats: The EU could declare that all official electronic documents have to use the OpenDocument format (where appropriate), effectively forcing Microsoft to provide OpenDocument support or

Re:MS blames everyone else.

It's actually a pretty good tactic, at least in the short term. First, an aggressive attack tends to make even the stronger group (the EU, for this example) flinch and get defensive, buying the aggressive attackers a moment to regroup. Second, from a mor

Re:MS blames everyone else.

If you ask for documentation that's "useful and light on the bullshit" you'll get compliance from the folks who are interested in actually providing useful documentation. The people who don't really want to help you out will complain that "useful" is too vague.

Re:MS blames everyone else.

But Microsoft did indeed provide some 2700 pages of documentation, which the EU rejected for various ambiguous reasons.

Re:MS blames everyone else.

2700 pages? There has to be a pony in there somewhere, keep digging.

Re:MS blames everyone else.

Nah, they just clicked on Windows Help and Support in XP, and printed out the whole thing. Nothing remotely useful there.

Re:MS blames everyone else.

I've read that the problem is the EU is failing to disclose specifics on EXACTLY what kind of documentation is acceptable.

The EU asked for documentation that was complete enough that other companies could code to all the same interface that MS does as judged by several previously agreed upon parties. The first of those parties rejected the initial offering saying it was not usable or up to industry standards. Seeing as this person is someone MS picked to judge this, I don't see how they can find fault with his findings.

Since it would be illegal to publish all the communication in between MS and the EU council none of us can know for certain what is going on, but I think most of us can make some pretty good guesses. MS wants to provide the minimum available information to convince the EU that they have given them what they need. They probably don't have good info documenting this and instead of making it they gave them broken docs and then tried to rope them into an alternative to giving them the docs.

With hundreds of millions of dollars on the line you'd think they could hire some people to exhaustively document the APIs, and you'd be right. The problem is MS does not really want to do that because then they might have to compete on even ground for the server space and that is a fight they can't win with their currently inferior and more expensive product. So they delay and spread FUD while trying to pay off the right people. Even if they lose and have to pay the fines it might still be a good business move for them. The fines are a tiny portion of the profit from their monopoly in the EU and extending that into the server market illegally as they are now doing is a good way to protect that monopoly and expand it.

Known Fact?

I thought everybody knows that Microsoft's rivals are constantly trying to bring it down?

Re:Known Fact?

that is not the point, the point is EU (being a or supposed to be a neutral agency) colluded with them. Nothing wrong in competition doing that, but not the judge. (believing by what MS says)

Re:Known Fact?

Which is pure BS. When MS got ruled against in the US the first thing they did was focus on the judge and the court to find a reason to water down the "final settlement". They are doing the same thing here....

Look at the Wookie!

B.

Re:Known Fact?

You have companies accusing Microsoft of various bad behavior. You have a lawful commission demanding information from MS to make a determination. You have MS playing all sorts of nasty tricks and now snivelling about the commission colluding with the co

Isn't all forms of government

convuluted, one sided and decided by those who scream the loudest and push the most money to the right people?

Suing microsoft is about the dumbest thing in the world with all of the problems societies across the world face. Tax dollars and legislative time

Re:Isn't all forms of government

Aww, come on! Someone has to make the Lawyers and /. Advertisers rich!

-Rick

Re:Isn't all forms of government

This is not only about Microsoft. This is about multiinternational companies supressing smaller companies for their own profit. In this case Microsoft is locking third parties outside of the software market for servers and desktopts using OS from Microsoft

Re:Isn't all forms of government

Suing microsoft is about the dumbest thing in the world with all of the problems societies across the world face. Tax dollars and legislative time should be better spent on real issues not internet explorer and windows media.

The EU is not suing Microsoft. They are overseeing MS's punishment for breaking the law. You might as well argue "tax dollars should not be spent collecting fines from convicted litterers. Just because we went to the expense of trying them and finding them guilty there is no reason we should waste time actually getting the money from them or making sure they do their community service."

Microsoft intentionally broke the law for profit. They are still doing it. They were convicted of it in a number of jurisdictions. You don't think they should be punished for that? You don't think they should have to obey the laws? You don't think something should be done to discourage them from doing it again?

Re:Isn't all forms of government

Jay-walking is against the law. Do you ALWAYS obey it even though it is a stupid law? Should you be shot in the leg after the first, second, or third offense to discourage you from doing it again? And I am not saying that the anti-trust act is stupid, I'm saying that declaring a corporation a monopoly and fining them because the OS THEY made comes with THEIR internet browser that is an integral part of the system and THEIR media player installed by default.

Stick to the topic. This is not about the browser, this is about the interfaces to the server OS. Bundling is illegal in almost every jurisdiction because it is a simple and easy way to use a monopoly to move into and take over new markets with products that are no better (and often worse) than the competition. Tying, is slightly more complex. The gist of it is, Windows server editions have an advantage over a Linux or Solaris box because they can speak all the secret protocols used to communicate with the desktop. This includes exchange, active directory, etc. As a result of this, Windows servers have an advantage based solely in the fact that they are made by the same company as Windows desktop. Windows servers are generally slower, less secure, less reliable, and can't multitask for crap, but they are tied to Windows desktop and Windows desktop OS's have a monopoly so everyone has to talk to them.

Thus MS was convicted, as they had been in the US and several other countries and as part of their punishment they were ordered to document all those secret interfaces by which their server was being illegally given an advantage. They are in the process of trying to weasel out of that. The reason: they know they can't compete in a fair market but they want to take over that market anyway and they don't mind breaking the law until someone manages to force them to stop.

If you'd like an explanation as to why bundling the browser and media player are illegal and bad for the industry (and can't already see the parallel) just ask, or go ahead and do a Google search. Antitrust law is very well explained many places online.

The long and short is they broke the law and it hurt everyone in the industry. I know a number of sysadmins who run Windows servers as well as Linux simply because they need something that can talk to exchange and active directory. Those servers usually only run one application, since Windows becomes unstable with multiple ones under load. They basically suck, but MS was paid for them anyway. How many billions of dollars did that suck out of countries around the globe? How many cool new technologies were not developed as people struggled to reverse engineer these secret protocols? How much manpower was wasted? How much did the computing industry suffer?

More important news

Meanwhile, in other news...
Reports of heavy breathing sounds in the forest and a string of grisly murders have raised fears that Steve Ballmer has returned to Europe!

Childhood

Reminds me of an argument some 5 year olds would have
"Your a colluder "
"No I'm not , you are"
"Takes one to know one"
"I'm telling "

Re:Childhood

"Your a colluder "

Children these days misspell even while speaking? Oh the humanity!

Re:Childhood

Um , that is the correct spelling ;) .
UK English

Conspiracy Theories

I thought that only Microsoft opponents resort to conspiracy theories, like the lovely Halloween documents and others, but it looks like Microsoft is learning from their opponents just another trick.

Accusations

Next they'll accuse them of having a monopoly on European government.

So?

So what are they going to do about it? Stop selling in the biggest economy of the world?

Gasp! Shock! Horror!

So let me see if I have this right: Microsoft has been required to publish specifications for it's protocols so that other people can make the same OS calls as Microsoft apps can make. The point of the documentation is that it be useful to other companies. So in the process of determining whether Microsoft has actually produced documentation that meets the requirements, the EU checks with other companies! Oh, the horror of collusion!

Give me a break, Microsoft.

So what?

It's the EU who has the final word. They'll simply dismiss Microsoft's formal complaint.

Big fish, meet bigger fish. [Nelson]HAH HAH![/Nelson]

Why does the EU even care?

How many of these companies are actually European?

Corporate Policy Forbids It!

I could see how this could happen:

-Maybe they have trademarked the word and process for databases?
-HR would never speak "they who must not be named" word.
-Corporation has a policy specifically forbidding the use of the word.
-Sales thinks they are a custome

Well you have to remember something...

Microsoft is so used to being the only player in town that any two groups working together looks like collusion to them.

Truly amazing

First they refuse to comply with the law. Then they refuse to comply with the judgement against them for breaking the law. Then they publicly agree to comply with the judgement against them for breaking the law, but don't ever begin to actually comply. Then they do a bunch of stuff unrelated to the judgement and complain that they're still being expected to comply with the judgement against them for breaking the law. Then they accuse the people judging them of breaking the law.

Microsoft is more powerful than governments, and the governments don't seem much to care.

My heart bleeds...

Of course Microsoft aren't guilty of those tricks at all

Rivals?

Microsoft has rivals?

Why i sorely want microsoft to lose this

I'm a citizen of Denmark, a European Union country. I'm a computer science student and game developer.
It's my belief that if the EU loses this, EU will be prevented from properly acting as a market watchdog in the future, hampering competition on european markets.
Read it likes this: it will cost me money and oppertunities.

It is also my belief that if Microsoft Corp. loses this, it will cost them money, and seeing as I'm a software developer I like that prospect, due to the way Microsoft Corp. works to stiffle innovation by promoting software patents (here i should also bash ibm, sun and others!).
[blah] While it is my view that software patents CAN be implemented in a decent way, I think that our current patent system is not up to speed with modern society, most importantly patent durations are WAAAY too long.[/blah]

Hopefully a big slap on the wrist of Microsoft Corp. will increase my chances of having success as a computer scientist.

In other news...

... The Microsoft lawsuit against the European Union for collusion, in which Microsoft demanded damages in the form of land, has ended today, with a verdict in Microsoft's favor. After a short transition period, all EU countries will become the property of Microsoft.

A Microsoft spokesperson said the United States will be sued next.

Lawyer tricks

Nothing to see here, move on. Just standard lawyer tricks - if you can't win based on the merits of your case, try to win based on formalities.

Re:Outcome

I'd like for Microsoft to win this, be eligible to sue the EU for several billion dollars more than what the EU can get off Microsoft, and then all sides play by the rules for the rest of the debacle.

What the hell are you talking about? MS built their business model around intentionally breaking the laws and once convicted of that are trying to avoid complying with the punishment the courts handed down. And they're doing the same thing in the US, where the DOJ appointed "watchdogs" have reported that MS has also failed to comply with what amounted to a slap on the wrist. It's as if you shoot someone, get convicted, but only given six months probation and a $500 fine because you pay off the judge, and then you don't even fulfill your probation terms.

The "rules" in this situation are the laws which MS is continuing to break and making a bundle doing so. They need to be broken up into multiple companies so this crap stops.

Re:The EU is more corrupt than Microsoft.

Nobody is saying Microsoft is corrupt, they are saying that Microsoft is abusing its market position. There's a big difference.

Now, perhaps you could list a list of SPECIFIC cases where the EU is seen as corrupt? Also, please refresh my memory about how

Re:This is irrlelevant

EU is trying to prop up OSS and European businesses because they dont[sic] like the idea that an American Company is the only productive option... Yes yes before i get flamed, i know linux has its place. But honeslty[sic] i have only seen people be productive with Linux in delevoper[sic] and server applicaitons[sic].

Do you even know what this whole thing is all about? MS broke the law by using their monopoly on desktop OS's to give an unfair advantage to their Web browser, media player, and server OS. That last item is the one of note here, since after they were convicted they agreed to fully document all the secret interfaces between their server and desktop OSs by which they were gaining market share with their inferior server OS. Market share gained because it had illegal advantages in dealing with their desktop OS.

This isn't about punishing MS for having a monopoly, it is about punishing them for using that monopoly to force inferior products upon consumers at overly high prices. This is about Windows Server editions being used over cheaper, more reliable, more secure, and more versatile Linux and Unix servers simply because they know the secret handshakes to talk to Windows desktop and all the features built into it.

To put it simply, MS broke the law and they did it knowingly. They built their whole business plan around breaking the law and betting that the courts would not punish them enough to make up for the profit. So far they have been completely correct and now after having been convicted they are trying to weasel our of one of the proscribed punishments. Hopefully they will not succeed.

Now i will sit back and watch the flaming begin because i ...gasp... defended an evil american corporation Microsoft on slashdot...what the hell was i thinking. Freedom of speech is an illusion your audiance[sic] gives. You can only freely say what they want to hear or they will string you up denounce you for having opposing views.

Hahahahaha! You seem a little unclear on the concept of free speech as well. You're free to say whatever you want, but anyone is also free to reply with why they disagree with you. Otherwise it would be free speech only for you and not for anyone else, huh? Anyway, what does the fact that they are an American company have to do with it? Most of the companies that benefit from this and are advising the EU are also American. Your nationalism is badly misplaced

Re:This is irrlelevant

hahaha, typical american to think that europeans are jealous on something you've got. How many times have I not heard that argument?

Your arguments fail because of this simple fact: Selling some good products that most consumers want, does not mean you c

Re:I'm with M$

I'm a german and I'd have no problem if every last one wehrmacht-soldier would have been put to death. And your logic is faulty: imprisoning a kidnapper is not kidnapping just as killing a murderer is not murder. Germany didn't get the kind of punishment i