Slashdot Log In
EU/Microsoft Antitrust Case Delves Into Tech
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:54 AM
from the need-some-acid-reduction-there dept.
from the need-some-acid-reduction-there dept.
oscartheduck writes "ZDNet is reporting on the Microsoft/EU case, and things aren't going too well for the software giant. The Commission is delving deeply into the technical issues surrounding the case. In addition to 'a record $617 million' that may well be leveled against the American monopolist, Microsoft is also standing accused of knowingly going forward with marketing practices 'that had already been judged illegal by U.S. courts when it was used on Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser.'" More from the article: " The founder of the Samba team of developers, which took years to create print and file server software that works with Windows, said his team is held back and playing catch-up. 'The tiny device I have here in the palm of my hand is the sort of product that could emerge if the information required by the Commission were available,' Andrew Tridgell said, holding a paperback-size storage server that he said could be turned into a work group server. Once it gives over the information, 'Microsoft no longer has a stranglehold over the world's networks,' he said. "
This discussion has been archived.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.
With Microsoft stock up 1.5% so far today... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:With Microsoft stock up 1.5% so far today... (Score:5, Informative)
Second, Microsoft has its thumb in over a hundred pies. Take a look at all of these news stories [yahoo.com], especially the one on profit estimates. This case won't be resolved any time soon and there are plenty of other things going on.
It seems like... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's time to finish their sleezeball business practises once and for all.
Windows has become such a huge part of European infratructure that we can no longer rely on a shady corporation.
Nice copy, but nothing to do with the issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Please note that at no point was Microsoft ever required to give out sourcecode. It was required to publish an API.
It was Microsoft itself that offered sourcecode (with licensing strings attached) just so it wouldn't have to publish the API specification. And perhaps also to confuse the issue ... so that half-informed people could make snide remarks about poor Microsoft being required to hand over their precious IP.
Stranglehold on the world's networks (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, we got to make up our minds here folks. Either Linux is prevalent in the server market or Microsoft has the stranglehold there too. You can't have it both ways...
Re:Stranglehold on the world's networks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stranglehold on the world's networks (Score:5, Insightful)
Open standards != Market Stranglehold (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, English could be considered an open standa
Re:Stranglehold on the world's networks (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft's stranglehold is on the client. Since everyone uses a client to get onto the network Linux can simultaneously be prevalent in the server market. Microsoft also
Re:Stranglehold on the world's networks (Score:2)
They have a stranglehold because of the Clients (Score:3, Insightful)
MS holds a grasp on the fileserver market for the simple reason that th
Fines don't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fines don't matter (Score:2)
Fines don't matter...MS just work[sic] it into the price of the OS, so the consumer ends up paying for it anyway. So it basically turns into a consumer tax on copies of Windows.
Fines are only one piece of the puzzle. First, where does the fine money go
Re:Fines don't matter (Score:2)
Re:Fines don't matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fines don't matter (Score:2)
I don't have the time to do that kind of research, but there MUST be people out there who do...
Businesses that wanna stay legit I s'pose. If their expenses are up, the cost of their products/services to their customers are up. So you
Re:Fines don't matter (Score:2)
International Law Question (Score:5, Interesting)
And how exactly does US law apply to EU courts? Do EU courts ever use US laws? That would seem utterly stupid to me.
Re:International Law Question (Score:2)
EU law roughly based on US law (Score:2)
Does US law apply in the EU? No, but ... (Score:4, Insightful)
But ... it seems that the EU has a healthy respect for the ability of US courts so determine matters of fact (as opposed to matters of law), which doesn't seem stupid at all.
If a US court, after about 3 years of discovery, expert witnesses taking the stand on both sides, concludes (as judge Jackson did) among other things that Microsoft:
- had a monopoly on desktop operating systems
- used this monopoly to prevent new entrants from entering the market
- lied in court when it stated that IE was needed for Windows to function (remember that video that was supposed to show Windows crashing after you removed IE? The video that was doctored to show the desired effect? Now I think that any ordinary person would have been prosecuted for perjury for pulling something like that, but apparently a company can get away with it.)
And if you further note that none of these findings were overturned on appeal ... then I believe it makes sense for a body such as the EU to take heed of it. And apparently the EU thought so too. How is this bad? What exactly is your complaint?
Re:International Law Question (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a big distinction between applying foreign law to questions where involved matters cross jurisdictional boundaries and using foreign precedent to guide the interpretation of domestic law in domestic applications, and between either of tho
Re:International Law Question (Score:2)
The difference, I suppose, is that if a prosecuter presents a jud
Re:International Law Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Or put another way... (Score:5, Interesting)
"We...submit that the (Commission) decision is an attempt to reconfigure (how the) market works by handicapping the leading player in perpetuity," Forrester told the court.
Perhaps "levelling the playing field" is a better way of looking at it. Look, I'm all for innovation and the right to make money off your ideas, but when it comes to computers and software, you have to bite the bullet and admit that people need choice. Admittedly, you want that choice to be your software or your server, and you can ensure that by dominating the market. Just as we've seen though, that makes you the target of everyone's wrath, whether from competitors, governments, or hackers.
So yes, Microsoft has a "right" to its intellectual property within reason, but when it come to interoperability, they need to rethink their stance. Ultimately they could conceivably eliminate most of their competition, but then that would spell the end of innovation on the grand scale, and force them to become even larger and more bloated than they are now. It's bad enough that one hand doesn't seem to know what the other is doing in Redmond, without consigning the rest of us to oblivion. MS needs to take its lumps, fix the interoperability/bundling issue, and move on.
Won't happen anytime soon.
Re:Or put another way... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is where I got ears, you know? Lawyers, like tech people, use a very precise language that only happens to have a larger overlap with the everyday language, so it isn't so much noticed as "tech jargon". But like your average RFC's "must" or "should", the word "frivolous" has a very precise and strong meaning when a lawyer uses it.
IANAL, but I judge this as a warning shot across the bows of the M$ lawyers. They might be in for a hard time personally if their arguments are indeed challenged as such and found to be frivolous.
Forced forward compatibilty? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Forced forward compatibilty? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sick to death of ignorant fools who can't be bothered to do a little research to understand a topic. Then they come up with the most asinine analogies to prove their ignorant p
Re:Forced forward compatibilty? (Score:2)
Re:Forced forward compatibilty? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, so if I get this right, if I create an interface to provide interoperability between my programs, and my programs become popular enough that people want to connect to them for reasons I didn't intend (and don't want to have to support), why is it a good business decision to release an API for that interface?
First, MS did not "invent" the interface they copied an existing open standard then intentionally broke it. Second, it is not a "good business decision" but it is required by the law if one of the two products you are talking about is in a market you have monopolized.
It seems like that might shooting myself in the foot if I'm giving it to others who intend (as the linux community does) to supplant me with my own technology. To me, that's like bring a tank to war and then giving the enemy the keys to it.
No it's like bringing a tank to the mall and then arguing when the cops arrest you for breaking the law by crushing other people's cars and driving a vehicle banned on public roads. "But officer, my tank lets me park more easily and closer to the doors! I'm special and rich, I don't have to obey the laws! I did the same thing in Kentucky and after I bribed the governor they let me go!"
Please, if you make up anymore analogies, don't forget to include that you are a monopoly and do a little research on what monopolies can and can't do and why. Bundling and tying are illegal actions for monopolies because they remove all the benefits provided by a capitalist free market. You may be ignorant, but you can bet MS isn't and they decided breaking the law was a good business decision. No sympathy for the devil.
Re:Forced forward compatibilty? (Score:2)
But it isn't just MS's own protoco
Re:Forced forward compatibilty? (Score:2)
Re:Forced forward compatibilty? (Score:2)
it's not the monopoly that microsoft is in court for. they are in breach of a ruling that the court made against them - the ruling is because of the abuse of monopoly power but this hearing is about them breaking an agreement they accepted
...sort of. Ex
Actually the funny thing is (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Actually the funny thing is (Score:2)
Re:Actually the funny thing is (Score:2)
Actually if I remember correctly, squatting is perfectly leagal under Brittish Common Law. In fact, it goes so far as to protect the squatter from exactally what you describe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting#Squatting_ i n_the_United_Kingdom [wikipedia.org]
So, ch
I get the distinct impression... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have direct experience of Microsoft having none or inadequate internal documentation (see my latest JE for the full discussion - http://slashdot.org/~Alioth/journal/133996 [slashdot.org]). A quick precis is that we were working with the GINA in the NT 4.0 days, and we had an expensive support contract with Microsoft (IIRC, numbers bandied about were US $40K) because of what we were doing with the GINA. We actually ended up speaking to Microsoft developers - who couldn't answer our questions. We ended up reverse engineering the MS GINA to find out how to set everything up correctly. It was interesting to note that the publically available GINA documentation improved substantially a couple of years later when Windows 2000 came out. Perhaps the developers felt ashamed that their customers had to resort to reverse engineering because this expensive support contract fell flat.
Re:I get the distinct impression... (Score:3, Informative)
I get the distinct impression that Microsoft being tardy to release the documentation for their protocols isn't purely due to malice - or even not malice at all. I get the impression that things like this simply aren't documented INSIDE of Microsoft, and
Thank God for the EU courts (Score:5, Interesting)
Thankfully the EU has some *balls*, and is not emasculated by the cult-of-monoplists that has shredded the integrity of the US government.
Hopefully, the massive inflation that is snowballing due to price-gouging in the oil industry and the resulting collapse of the real-estate balloon market will shock the US populace into sweeping the Republicans out of both houses of Congress while they clean out the White House.
Then there will be a chance that the US Dept. of Justice will get back into the business of enforcing the law.
It is my dearest fantasy to believe that I will someday see "Ballmer and Butthead" being led off to jail in handcuffs.
Re:Fuck the EU and Blame Bush for everyhting is BS (Score:3, Interesting)
Aw, dammit! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:smoothness (Score:2)
Microsoft isn't shooting itself in the foot when it breaks with standards and insists on it's own hidden protocols and such-- not until customers st
Re:Screw the EU (Score:2)
Re:Screw the EU (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not usually on Microsoft's side but screw the EU on this one. This is a simple case of extortion. I mean there is no downside to fine a US company. They are fining MSFT just because they can and its somewhat fashionable to do so.
So let me get this straight, you think the EU is fining MS for intentionally breaking the law, after MS was judged guilty of doing the same thing by the US courts, because it is "fashionable?" MS broke and continues to break the law. The EU has a history of going after all sorts of companies both European and foreign for breaking antitrust law. To whine when they apply it to MS, means you probably have bought into some of MS's ridiculous propaganda.
Your nationalism is just moronic. You might as well go hang out with all the rednecks that think Americans should be above the law when visiting other countries.
Re:Screw the EU (Score:3, Interesting)
don't buy any of Microsoft's bullshit but I still don't think this isn't going to help consumers anywhere. A Good example: The EU made Microsoft build a new version of XP without Media Player. I read something like .005% of consumers bought that version.
Re:Screw the EU (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think my logic is off here. Thats just my point. The fact is you have these politicans making technical decisions that they know nothing about.
This is the logical fallacy of "ad hominem attack."
Media Player was wrong and so is this.
This is a repeat of your "argument by association."
You haven't provided any logical reasons why you think this particular ruling will be ineffective. Stop wasting my time by avoiding the topic. Why do you think this particular punishment will not help in the way I described?
I'm for open standards just as much as the next guy. But arguing that a private company must comply with that belief is wrong.
I'm all for nonviolent resolution of problems, but trying to force convicted murderers to not illegally carrying concealed guns while on parole is just wrong.
What MS has done is against the law. This particular part of the punishment says they will stop breaking the law in this particular way. It isn't about open standards, it is about tying a product from a monopolized market with a product from a non-monopolized market. Ford can make tires and size they want with weird, proprietary ways to attach the rim to the rotor. If, however, they gain a monopoly on cars, they have to document that attachment and allow third parties to interoperate with it. Otherwise, they can just spread their monopoly into new monopolies, thus removing customer choice, competition, innovation, and all the other benefits of the free market. It is the law, and MS broke it, intentionally, under the belief that they would make more money doing so than obeying the law.
In theory, MS can comply with the law in another way, by removing all the secret interaction between their desktop and server completely. Just tear the functionality out of one of the products and they will be in compliance with the law, if not with their signed agreement for how they would stop breaking the law.
MS business practices have been shady to say the least but this is the wrong way to fix that.
They haven't been shady in this case, they have been blatantly illegal as ruled by numerous court systems. Ordering them to stop breaking the law is definitely the way to fix it.
Is this the logic? 1) MS makes a shitty / poor documented product. 2) Everyone buys it 3) Sue MS until they fix it 4) Make some cash in the process.
1) You're right so far. 2) Wrong. MS coerces many people into buying it, by tying it to their desktop system, which is a monopoly and no one can do business without. 3) This isn't a lawsuit. No one is being sued. This is committing a crime, criminal law, not civil. The courts don't sue you for murder. They convict you, as they did MS. 4) Fines are very nearly the only punishment that can be levied against corporations. They could order them broken up into separate companies, but this is a step in the right direction.
You seem to be very misinformed in numerous ways. You should do a little research on this case and on antitrust law (both what it is and why almost every country has it in similar form). MS has not been convicted of making shitty/ poorly documented products. They've been convicted of leveraging their monopoly on desktop OSs to make consumers buy those products, even though they are shitty. The basic purpose of anti-trust law is to stop companies from abusing monopolies in ways that obviously harm consumers and markets.
Re:Screw the EU (Score:3, Informative)
Your faith in the good intentions of the EU Commission is likewise moronic. It is simply fortunate that our goal (of getting MS to open their protocols) is temporarily aligned with the goal of the Commission (extortion).
I think you are greatly oversimpl
Re:Screw the EU (Score:3, Informative)
Sure they are following the rules they they set. Really tough to do that...
I think you're a little unclear on the concept of "rule by law." It's not like the people who convicted and are responsible for overseeing MS's punishment had anything to do wit
Re:I just wish MS was forced to open it's 'standar (Score:3, Informative)
Problem is that so many of these 'standards' suck. Even our ubiquitous HTTP/1.1 standard has no automated test suite for clients or servers to tell developers 'Ye
Re:Is this encouraging or rigging the competition? (Score:5, Informative)
After reading a little about the case, my understanding was that the commission is asking Microsoft to publicize their protocol standards so that it encourages competition. As my understanding goes, competition is not based on knowing how your opponent does what he/she does; it is based on if you can do better than your opponent.
What you are missing is an understanding of anti-trust law. You're looking too much at the specifics and not enough at the law and the reason for the law. You should read up on anti-trust law if you want to truly understand the topic.
Here is a short and dirty explanation. In most jurisdiction it is legal to have a monopoly. Whether the monopoly comes about because you make an innovative new product, or the nature of the industry, or geography, or some combination does not matter. Having gained a monopoly, you have done nothing illegal (necessarily). Once you have a monopoly, however, the law restricts you from using that monopoly in such a way as to gain an unfair advantage in another market. My stock explanations almost always involve cheese for some reason. Say you gain a monopoly on televisions; all well and good and legal. Now you decide, I think "I want to open a business that sells cheese as well. Since everyone has to buy a television from me or go without (I have a monopoly) why don't I just raise the price on TV's $3500 and give away a free lifetime supply of my cheese with it." It's brilliant! The cheese need not be as good as the competition, nor do I have to be able to make it cheaper. People will buy it anyway, because they want TVs. And what of other cheese sellers? Most will go out of business.
What happened in the above situation? The new cheese seller did not innovate better or cheaper cheese. In fact they might have more expensive and less tasty cheese. Still they have taken over a market. What happened is they used bundling to to bypass all the benefits (innovation, lower prices, etc.) that are brought about by the free market. Worse, there is nothing stopping them from parleying each of their two monopolies into yet more monopolies. People realized this was a bad thing long ago, and simply passed laws preventing it, for the good of consumers and the state of the industries.
Moving right along, we come to tying. What if, instead of bundling the two products together (like cheese and televisions) we just tied it to another product. Say we made all the TVs detect anything in between them and the cable TV and stop working if they found something. And then we added a special (patented) connector to the TV that hooked up to a VCR. Since only our VCRs worked, we'd quickly own the VCR market as well as the TV market. Maybe that would be too unsubtle. What if, instead we used a secret, encrypted protocol for the remote control, so people who bought VCRs from other people had to have two remotes, while ours only needed one. And in addition, what if we added a special connector that plugged into our new telephones and turned the TV volume down when you picked up the phone (but only our brand of phones). Well, we wouldn't take over the markets right away, but we would have an advantage over our competitors. And maybe we could sell cheap and crappy phones and VCRs at higher prices, since we were the only ones that worked with the TV that easily. Is there anything wrong with that?
According to the law in almost every country, yes. Consumers should not have to pay more and use crappier phones and VCRs just to gain the benefits of having them interoperate with TVs.
MS is not tying TVs and VCRs. They are tying their desktop OS (monopoly) with their server OS (which is gaining market share and selling well). Their server OS is slower, multitasks more poorly, is more expensive, is less secure, is less stable, and lacks a number of very useful features other server products have. People still buy it though, because it is tied to the desktop OS monopoly by being the only server that can speak the secret AD and Exchange protocols.