Microsoft and EU Talks End 1028
Paul Longford writes "Microsoft talks with the EC have collapsed. The competition commisioner Mario Monti just made this statement in which he said: 'I'd just like to inform you that a settlement on the Microsoft case has not been possible. I therefore intend to propose to my colleagues in the Commission next Wednesday to adopt a decision, which has already received the unanimous backing of Member States.' This is bad news for Microsoft - it looking at a considerable fine and possibly being forced to open up Windows. It looks like it will be a harsh decision too. Monti says: 'In the end, I had to decide what was best for competition and consumers in Europe. I believe they will be better served with a decision that creates a strong precedent.'"
It's about time. (Score:5, Insightful)
OK so they get fined and told how to distribute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who thinks this will REALLY change anything? That MS will go a little bit more restricted in how media stuff is installed from a start, but they'll keep on doing the same old crap in every other part of their dealings with the EU
Harsh?!? Opening? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is next to nothing. Nothing short of breaking up MS and demanding published, open APIs, protocols and file formats will do.
Re:Did anyone expect this to end nicely? (Score:1, Insightful)
MS, enjoy paying the money
Yeah, I'm sure money is sooo scarce for Microsoft."A fine?!? This could ruin us!"
I wish it could make a bigger impact on their finances.
And now... (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to know... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sad but true.
Don't laugh too soon (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OK so they get fined and told how to distribute (Score:5, Insightful)
that's why they want the strong precident so they go after MS again and again until they play fair (or they go bankrupt wwhich lets face it is more likley than them playing fair)
Eventually no apps? (Score:4, Insightful)
No Web Browser (Netscape)
No Media Player (Real)
No Word/Wordpad (Wordperfect)
No Imaging (ACDSee)
No Defrag (Notron Works)
No Zip support (WinZip)
No Solitaire (...)
Seems pretty useless to Joe Average, who just wants to turn on his new PC and play his MP3s and check his email.
Re:Disincentive (Score:3, Insightful)
Ohh yeah (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:A chilling phrase if you're MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eventually no apps? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Harsh?!? Opening? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to say that much as I am anti-Microsoft and think they've got a monopoly that needs dealing with, I am rather worried about what this will mean.
Well, slightly worried, anyway.
If Windows is deemed anticompetitive in the media-stakes, well all that can really be done is to force MS to allow WIndows to come with alternatives installed. That's not really gonna affect them. It sure ain't gonna affect me, as should I ever buy another Windows PC then the first thing I'll do (like with my current one) is to repartition and reinstall to my tastes. So if Real & Quicktime are included, they won't be for long.
And there's no easy way they can force MS to include them on an installation disc, at least not wtihout clearing the licensing with Apple and Real.
And in all honesty, I can't see MS being forced to break up and open up any time soon. It just isn't going to happen.
Tiggsdon't get too excited - see link.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The company is certain to appeal against a Commission decision in the European courts. Litigation could take several years."
At which time any verdict will be pretty much irrelevant.
Wonder how this affects Longhorn planning. Anyone with insight on this?
Re:hmmmm.... works out math (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And now... (Score:1, Insightful)
Besides, I dont think being a ruthless american company is a very good way of getting along with the political majority in europe right now.
Re:hmmmm.... works out math (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:hmmmm.... works out math (Score:2, Insightful)
You are aware of english being a European language?
Why the commision will fold and MS will get off (Score:2, Insightful)
For all you zealots who says we can use Linux instead, that is great in theory but imagine the economic impact of replacing 80% of the computer desktops and a smaller but significant number of the servers.
Re:This is less about MS.. (Score:0, Insightful)
Is it just me? (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember it is about power, politics, and money. Not right or wrong.
Microsoft can thank Bush (Score:3, Insightful)
When Microsoft is forced to behave everywhere _except_ the United States, then they will end up having to behave in the USA as well.
Getting an easy sentence from the US Anti-Trust conviction may not have been as favorable as it looked originally.
It is very indirect... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is an extremely indirect form for democracy, at best, and it is easy to influence by lobbyism and somewhat prone to corruptions. And it is damn slow. However, it is much harder to influence by manipulating the elections. There is no "single point of failure" like with the US president.
Re:What if M$ pulls the plug on Europe? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good job EU! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem was the Bush Justice Department. Ashcroft simply refused to do anything, and let the decision be unenforced, thus snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
The judicial system worked, after all those long years. Bush, who believes any regulation of business is socialistic if not outright communistic, according to an old Harvard business professor of his, finds the anti-monopoly laws distasteful in the extreme, and his cohorts are vetted to agree with such beliefs. When Bush was elected, the Microsoft case was effectively lost.
Re:It's about time. (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, if revenue dries up but expenses stay the same, something is going to get cut back. This could be as minimal as the stoppage of contributions to MS's $50B piggy bank or it could mean cutbacks in developer jobs, but rest assured, something will get cut. So overall, this probably doesn't bode well for Microsoft, even if they do open up their sources or API's.
Re:I want to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
You make it sound like Europeans buying Macs is a bad thing... I beg to differ. Giving a larger infusion into Apple means more useful R&D. Microsoft spends a lot on R&D and still cannot make its products immune from script kiddies or crashes and the like. Getting more Macs (and hopefully G5 Macs) means giving a larger stake of the industry over to IBM and the PPC architecture, which is good for competition. Look at Intel; footdragging on 64 bit consumer chips, running hotter with each model, and power consumption is getting out of hand. Perhaps such a shift in an important market like Europe would return their focus back to their design centers and start taking a serious look at power consumption.
And as for the open source side, the last time I checked, Apple's Safari is based upon KHTML, and that comes from the Linux side. An operating system based upon BSD. Those are some credentials when compared to the current standard (Microsoft). So why are you complaining?
And just as a note, just because Best Buy (here in the US) is dropping Macs from their stores does not mean people aren't switching to Macs; it just means that Best Buy employees do not know how to successfully sell them. You can get some deals on eMacs and PowerMac G4's right now there. They haven't cut the prices on the iBooks or PowerBooks yet though...
Re:forced to 'open up' windows (Score:2, Insightful)
Right of way laws and such...
Ah, I love government.
Re:Ding Dong the Witch is Dead.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's anti-Bush sentiment. Of course Bush supporters don't see any difference, but there is one.
Re:Eventually no apps? (Score:5, Insightful)
Web Browser
[ ] IE
[ ] Mozilla
Media Player
[ ] WMP
[ ] Real
[ ] WinAmp
Text Editing
[ ] Wordpad
[ ] Notepad
[ ] OpenOffice
Imaging
[ ] ACDSee
[ ] MS Imaging
[ ] Gimp
[ ] MS Paint
Re:I want to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, what's so bad about people running Macs these days?
Cooper
--
Don't you just love the sound of nature?
- Ginger Snaps II -
Re:OK so they get fined and told how to distribute (Score:5, Insightful)
It will change the consumers' perception of what Microsoft actually is: An anti-competitive monopolist with questionable business practices.
the double standard (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:It's about time. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I want to know... (Score:3, Insightful)
And besides, it's not like there isn't a lot of MS property in the EU that can be dispossessed (there are probably a few copies of the source code of most MS products over here too). Local managers probably aren't too fond of the prospect of jail time either.
And even if those things weren't true, I don't think that Washington likes the idea of a rebellant Microsoft and a pissed off EU. I highly doubt they'll keep quiet about such a move.
Re:Why the commision will fold and MS will get off (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Eventually no apps? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:STOP WITH THE LINUX IS HARD CRAP! (Score:2, Insightful)
You are an idiot. Did I say Linux was hard? No. I said people wouldn't use it. I think Linux is fantastic. I use it everyday at home. That doesn't change the fact the normal, everyday people WILL NOT USE IT! They are wrong, but they are still scared of it.
Re:Why the commision will fold and MS will get off (Score:4, Insightful)
Errr.. I am.. lots of news jobs for Linux-savvy people like me, with MSc's in computer science but a lame job.
I for one welcome... a... uh.... new job?
Re:OK so they get fined and told how to distribute (Score:1, Insightful)
They'll probably include a seedy reference to the Commission decision forcing them to do this too.
I'm not with the EU on this one (Score:2, Insightful)
I know this attitude screwed Netscape over, but consider that the reverse side could be seen as SCOs; "the others have become more advanced, rendering our technology obselete, but we should be able to sit on our butts and get licensing fees"
I do not really feel that governments should interfere in the market, except that in recognition of the fact that they are the largest buyers, they should mandate as much open standards for all software that they purchase and use. Banning use of proprietary standards in all government dealings would be a much greater incentive to open source software and competition than all the market regulation and fines could ever achieve.
Re:It's about time. (Score:5, Insightful)
US involvement? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Competition" = DoubleSpeak (Score:2, Insightful)
The issue is how they have have 'abused' the position of a monopoly having suceeded.
There is a perenial general problem of how to deal with monopolies. In the limit monopolies defeat free market capitalism as surely as socialism.
Ideally power should be asymptotic, ie very easy to get to 50% market dominance, harder to get to 60/70% and damn near impossible to go above 80/90% market dominance.
Unfortunately unchecked free markets have the opposite (positive) feedback effect. Having achieved 50% market dominance it becomes EASIER to go the next mile. That's why government intervention is a necessary evil.
Re:It's about time. (Score:5, Insightful)
The basic case is that the courts have changed antitrust in such a way as to make it impossible for the plaintiff to win. For example, they've added an argument that the plaintiff must prove "harm to the consumer". In the Microsoft case, Netscape proved that Microsoft had used it's Windows monopoly to destroy Netscape's market share, but Microsoft argued that doing so had not harmed the consumer. Such an argument can't be proved either way without using a crystal ball. It used to be assumed that limiting competition harmed the consumer. Competition is what capitalism is supposed to be about, right?
Microsoft also argued that Netscape might have gone bankrupt anyway due to their own poor business decisions. That's kind of like arguing that the guy you just shot might have been hit by a car because he got a jaywalking ticket last week, but the court's seem to have bought the argument.
Re:Reignite Competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do they use Windows? Because it's default, it's the defacto, it's the "standard" that has been created. They send and receive Word
So I hear reports that Microsoft is patenting it's XML formats (or something along those lines) for the next version of Word. When OpenOffice can't read these files for legal reasons, is that going to be Microsoft's fault, or OpenOffice's fault? We know what the answer is, but these guys don't care. They aren't lawyers, and they just want to do their job without worrying about what license their computer is operating under.
Microsoft abused it's power. It's that simple. The fact that competition is starting to come out is a good thing, but you don't have to be the only one to violate anti-trust laws (or else Microsoft would never have gone to trial in the first place, as other OS's have always existed). However, I don't know the EU anti-trust laws at all, so I can only imagine they broke them there as well.
The point is, by forcing this on Microsoft, it will ensure competition. I don't want to see the end of Microsoft, but rather, I want to see the beginning of a standards based environment where competitors compete on the quality of their product.
Hopefully this decision will allow such an environment to prosper and grow.
Re:Good job EU! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU commission does enforce anti-trust laws on European companies on a regular basis. And yes, they would love Europe to have a stronger position in the global software market.
However, in this case, it's hard to see a strong domestic interest. Who benefits: Apple, Real? They aren't well-known European companies.
Re:Where's the Microsoft website URL then? (Score:2, Insightful)
Getting ripped off by MS in the USA is ok because the money just goes to Seattle. However, getting ripped off by MS in Europe is bad because the money doesn't stay in Europe.
I think Europeans will be more inclined to stick to their guns in this case. I suppose time will tell.
Astroturf sensors just overloaded (Score:5, Insightful)
It's straight-forward execution of the state's obligation to enforce rules of fair play as defined by consensus and trial-and-error through the ages. One of those is to prevent manipulation of markets by parties powerful enough to take a monopoly position.
Monopolists distort the markets and supress free competition so as to extract maximum resources from consumers. This is bad for innovation, for economic performance and for society as a whole. There is only one organ that we grant the right to raise taxes, and that is the State itself.
The EU are doing their job. The US have failed to do this perhaps because the State and Business are too close together.
BTW, wtf does p-C m-f-e-n actually mean? I mean, wtfffff??
Re:Ding Dong the Witch is Dead.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Some of Europe's terrorism has even been funded by Americans, but for some reason GW isn't bombing people in Boston for donating to NORAID/IRA. Terrorism's a funny old thing isn't it?
Re:Harsh?!? Opening? (Score:5, Insightful)
So think OEMs, these are the companies that actually distribute Windows, not Microsoft.
Too bad they are not going for the only sanction (Score:1, Insightful)
Stopping the force-feeding of Winodws with new PC:s.
There should be a law that would REQUIRE the OS to be a separate item in the bill for a new PC. If someone does not want it, the PC must be cheaper by exactly the normal retail price of the OS (no matter which OS). The OS could be pre-installed, no problem, but if the customer does not want it, the dealer must remove the OS and lower the price.
As I see it, THIS would be the only way to level the paying field for OS'es.
Re:It's about time. (Score:1, Insightful)
This is GREAT news for me. With MS developer jobs being slashed left and right, and the sudden shift in perspective that MS is not the un-stoppable monolith that everyone thinks it is, Linux jobs will grow.
Half the jobs I've been searching in my area are stupid ASP, VBNet and other retarded MS technologies.
In fact, this is would probably be an even bigger boon for Java, so that wishy-washy execs could keep one foot in the MS pool while trying out other platforms.
Re:A chilling phrase if you're MS (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you kidding? If they did that, they would effectively kick themselves out of a market that is GDP- and population-wise larger than US. MS products would be replaced with other alternatives(*) and they would lose their monopoly grip on the market, as the alternatives would show themselves to be viable elsewhere too.
(*) I'm not saying that the alternatives (which would probably be Linux- and BSD-based desktop environments and office applications) would be completely ready tomorrow, but the instantly opened 400M+ person market would give them a bit of boost...
--
Re:Ford is not a monopoly,... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ford (Microsoft) has 90% of the market. Gas stations have pumps (hardware/drivers) that only work on Fords and virtually all dealers (dell, gateway, etc..) will only sell you a Ford. Parking spots, roadways
You could buy a Toyota (Red Hat). Unfortunately when you do, you realize that you end up having to find different pumps to get gas (which are few and far between), cannot buy a Toyota fully assembled (computer w/Red Hat installed) and end up having to buy a Ford (Wintel machine) and installing Toyota parts (Red Hat & software). Of course, even after you have your Toyota and you realize it is better (more fuel efficient, more reliable, more features, etc..), you find that Ford's dominance adversely affects the full potential of your Toyota. You no longer can use the local pumps down the street, you end up having to do maintenance by yourself (as very few if any of the shops will service your Toyota), and worse of all, your favorite parking spots, streets and music (software) is not supported full on the Toyota so you end up either having to find completely new music, new places to drive and new parking spots or end up simply being constrained on where you can go.
The bottom line is this -- cars don't work this way. I had a Honda and bought a Toyota. My CDs still worked in in, I could still get the same gas, drive the same roads, park in the same parking spots. The basic fundamental "user interface" is the same -- perhaps laid out slightly different. I can get it serviced at a wide variety of places, get the oil changed at the neighborhood gas station. No problems.
Unfortunately, when talking about computer system choice, this is obviously not as "drop in and go" as you make it out to be. The fact that Microsoft monopolized the market, coerced OEMs into supporting only MS products (bundling deals and the like), effectively dumps their product to get people hooked and does not follow industry standards to maintain a certain level of lock-in adversely affects everyone.
Re:Is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, they're showing that they have teeth to ALL who trade in the EU, both native and foreign.
If MS had been based in the EU, they'd have been defanged harshly at the initial hearing (unlike in the US where they got given a slap on the wrist, told to be good boys, and let loose to cause havoc again).
The reason Linux has been getting used in Governments is to help stop frequent virus infections, use an OS which they can tailor themselves, and isn't locked in to one vendor saying what they can and cannot do with it, and charging extortionate prices for that.
Even if they used Windows to run Government offices, they'd still need local contractors to run the machines..
If the offices believe they save money, then it's a fair bet in the long run that they will.
And it certainly stops the 'single point of failure' that a single vendor solution presents.
Re:Who decides what should and shouldn't be includ (Score:2, Insightful)
Come to think of it, there was a time when third parties sold memory managers for Windows . . .
Re:OK so they get fined and told how to distribute (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Source is nice, for example, but does that mean proprietary software is "unfair?"
So we can come to the car analogy again, for example, if someone starts putting proprietary air filters or even a proprietary stereo (where you can't figure out the connections, for example - you'd have to rip out all the old speakers and everything and completely replace it to put a new one in). Those things would really suck, and make me not want to buy that car, but would it really be "unfair?" Should the government step in and say that car manufacturer can no longer install stock stereo systems?
I realize we can go around in circles about what consumers are "forced" to buy when they buy a new computer, but the fact is that now, more than there has been in the past 20 years, there is a choice. So we can rag on all the losers that don't know a bit from a byte or what an OS even is, but if they are the majority and they want their "free" media player/browser/whatever installed when they buy the computer, is it "fair" to tell them they can't have that? Isn't this just making things difficult for the vast majority of the people involved?
I suppose we can look at future rewards from current hardships, but we have to ask if it's really necessary.
For the record, I don't buy MS software, I won't even buy an X-Box even though I love games, I just can't bear the thought of giving my money to MS. However, I'm not such an idiot that I don't understand why other people do it, and they should be free to do it if they want. People should start taking personal responsibility, if they put up with that crap, the manufacturers will abuse them - the same as we are being abused by the RIAA and MPAA and keep going back for more. If enough people abandon MS, they will get the picture.
A subscription to Mandrake, for example, is a good start... so is not buying cheapbytes discs, but buying them from the actual distributers. Macinstosh, for many, is also a fine solution, although I have no doubt that given the market share they'd be just as bad, if not worse, than MS.
Let's assume there's 500,000 slashdot subscribers. Let's assume 80% are open source advocates who use Linux. Let's assume they all did the $60/year Mandrake subscription. That's 400,000 * 60 = $24,000,000 that goes to Mandrake Linux. Let's say Mandrake is supporting a number of OpenSource projects. All those projects improve (not necessarily) and create more demand. After two years, 800,000 people subscribe. That's how it's supposed to happen, not by crying to the government to impose restrictions on your competition so that everything is "fair" - that's like a Harrison Bergeron world.
I'm really beginning to hate the word "fair", because I don't think most people actually understand what it means.
BTW, cheers to the people in the EU who fought this fight and made it happen. I don't know about any of your constitutions as much as I'd certainly like to, but the U.S. constition has no provision that life will be "fair".
This is not to say I don't agree with laws banning some monopoly tactics (like dumping and tying), just that I think it's not as clear cut as a lot of people think (is MS dumping their product by giving it for free with the OS when other companies don't charge for their media players or browsers?) Even the tying claims are difficult because it does give better performance to integrate some things with the OS, even if we all disagree that the performance gains outweight the problems that can cause.
I guess my biggest problem with all this is that it is not going to make MS go away, or even lose marketshare. As such, it's not going to cause third party developers to support linux or open standards (which is what we really want, isn't it?). We can't rely on the government to do that.
MS cannot "beat" OpenSource software, but it can keep us b
Re:And now... (Score:3, Insightful)
The commission is not elected, and is in fact more powerful than the parliament. Not very democratic, but on the other hand also not subject to the kind of manipulation that you point out (and that is so common in the US).
Re:OK so they get fined and told how to distribute (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why the commision will fold and MS will get off (Score:2, Insightful)
For all you zealots who says we can use Linux instead, that is great in theory but imagine the economic impact of replacing 80% of the computer desktops and a smaller but significant number of the servers.
Remember that Linux isn't the only alternative to MS Win32 systems. Also consider the amount of business that was generated due to computer events like "Year 2000". In todays economy, a change like this might actually be welcome for those that could capitalize on it.
The US could see a Clinton like economy again (one supported by the unreal ".com" industry and the fear of "Y2K" - I believe without these, Clinton would likely have had the economy that Bush has today) if we have this artificial economic stimuli.
Re:the double standard (Score:3, Insightful)
I donno about you but I use my computer more than diamonds!
Re:Disincentive (Score:3, Insightful)
It's poorly phrased, but that's a very interesting question. In the fight for the desktop, Microsoft has two big guns, MS Windows and MS Office. These two products enable them to sell all sorts of server stuff to support them - things like Exchange Server and MS SQL Server and, to a lesser extent, other types of collaborative software. Open Source companies have correctly identified this situation, so you see a lot of development taking place in the OS/Desktop and office productivity realms. You also see a lot of activity in the backoffice support technologies.
This competition is not going to just go away. Microsoft's competitors have realized that competing on level ground with Microsoft is damn near impossible. Very few corporations are capable of it. In this climate open source technologies provide a way to compete that Microsoft cannot defend against effectively. In the past, Microsoft would simply buy out the competition or use their muscle to compete unfairly (embrace and extend). They can't do that any longer because part of the equation has been broken. Microsoft cannot buy it's competition without endangering it's own business model. Even if they were to buy an open source company, another one would spring up immediately with an identical product. Without that leverage, embrace and extend doesn't work because the number of competitors (who effectively can't be bought) is simply too great.
Faced with these pressures, Microsoft is doing all they can to increase customer lock-in so that customers are less likely to take advantage of open source alternatives. They are also doing all they can to undermine the open source movement without looking like an Ogre, or at least not like too much of one. One of the classic ways to increase customer lock-in is to bundle applications with the desktop that operate only on that desktop. Windows Media Player is an excellent example, as is MSN Messenger. They also offer cut rates on premium items like MS Money to computer retailers so that they will bundle the product. With all of these products bundled on the computer, customers are less likely to switch to alternatives because none of the applications they use on a regular basis will run. This means that they must re-learn all of their skills instead of just a couple new applications.
But now they are facing competition that is entrenched, nearly unassailable, and getting better every day. Microsoft's monopoly days are numbered and they know it. All they can do is try to forstall the inevitable for as long as possible, and they will do this by tightening customer lock-in more and more until there is a major sea-change in the market. Specifically, they will continue to bundle more applications. I think you can expect to see PhotoPaint (or whatever it's called) from the Office suite to soon be bundled with Windows. MS Money may be a good candidate. MS Word will certainly come in at some point, perhaps with reduced functionality. In they end, Microsoft will have to either bundle nearly everthing, as it's open source competitors do now, or start porting it's applications to alternative platforms in order to compete in it's competitors' space.
That, my friends, is capitalism in action. It doesn't necessarily mean death to Microsoft, but it does mean more diversity in the market, and that is a good thing.
Since when has Windows not harmed the consumer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, no harm to the consumer there.
Re:Careful.. (Score:1, Insightful)
I imagine, due to sheer size of her armed forces that America would be able to raze Europe to the ground in any significant conventional war, but any such war would almost certainly go nuclear after a certain stage which would end that very quickly.
Aside from that, don't underestimate the ability of European nations to protect themselves - I don't think America could launch a signficant surprise attack on Europe - giving Europe time to respond and arm itself. This isn't some nation that's been under sanctions for 10 years - Europe has some pretty advanced weaponary. Of course, there would be a natural disadvantage thanks to certain technologies being heavily concentrated in American hands (such as GPS), but this would only be a hindrance versus a home turf advantage.
I think that even Bush would have problems pushing such a war anyway...
Re:OK so they get fined and told how to distribute (Score:2, Insightful)
the main problem is there abuse of being a monopoly not the actual monopoly it self.
Ok, I'm just ranting now. Cheers
There's nothing like a good old rant it helps keep the blood pressure down.
Re:Ding Dong the Witch is Dead.. (Score:3, Insightful)
None of that, in fact, makes Europe jealous of you or the United States. It makes us pity you.
Re:OK so they get fined and told how to distribute (Score:5, Insightful)
So we can come to the car analogy again, for example, if someone starts putting proprietary air filters or even a proprietary stereo (where you can't figure out the connections, for example - you'd have to rip out all the old speakers and everything and completely replace it to put a new one in). Those things would really suck, and make me not want to buy that car, but would it really be "unfair?" Should the government step in and say that car manufacturer can no longer install stock stereo systems?
If you couldn't get your car without the Stereo, the multiple cd changer. Sure, it's free, wink wink, nudge, nudge.
Do you remember that Netscape wanted and needed to change for their browser? And Bill Gates said in a public forum that MS still had OS revenue and they could "compete" in the "free" browser market while he didn't see how Netscape could.
After MS included the browser for free, loaded on the machine, and excluded any other browsers, Netscape was forced to enter the "Free" browser market and simply make money on server products. (They're not free, Netscape had to try to leverage it's server market products market-share to support the "free" browser.) I can't find quotes, as they're old but some of the statements by Gates are pretty damning.
It's been said many times before, but once you reach monopoly status, you can't use the same tactics to force people out of your markets. The power and ability to do so, the theory goes is too great and the results always ultimately hurt consumers.
So, no, I don't think this is unjustified. Sure, it's way late and probably will only serve to increase the rising tide against MS, rather than early on where it could have turned the tide. That's too bad, but we shouldn't give up on prosecuting the murderer simply because it was 20 years ago and he's in jail on bank fraud. (Not to mention, we don't know where things will go tomorrow and having a judgement in the bank will go a long ways to prevent abuse as much as possible as MS either reforms or dies.)
Anyway...
Cheers,
Greg
Re:It's about time. (Score:-1, Insightful)
Seriously, though. As much as MS offends me, I am more offended by the idea that governments can confiscate somebodys property rights so easily.
People's Republik of Europe, here we come.
Prepare to wait in line 24 hours, comrade, for a chance to browse the empty shelves of the People's Software Commissary. Prepare to wait 10 months for the government to agree to allow you the privilege to use a compiler, after you agree to offer your output for free to your fellow comrades.
Re:It's about time. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would hardly call .NET retarded. Maybe you were referring only to VB.NET and not .NET in general, but given your Java reference, I'm assuming you're talking about .NET in general. MS commits many crimes and uses a lot of underhanded tactics. They also screw up their software in a lot of ways. Even with all that though, MS does do some things right. .NET is a good idea and is even being emulated by open source developers now. Knock them where they deserve it, but give them credit when they do something well. .NET is something that is done well.
Too Little, Too Late (Score:3, Insightful)
Suppose Microsoft is forced to provide the option of a version of Windows XP without the media player? Now that it's pretty well established a foothold in the marketplace, how many customers and OEMs are really going to exercise such an option? Plus, they already have XP Embedded waiting that could be easily adapted to this purpose.
Net effect on Microsoft's media strategy: minor speedbump.
Fines: I've heard talk of 2e8 Euros. Even with the depreciation of the dollar, MS has 6e10 dollars in cash. That's about, oh, 0.3 per cent. Like, hurt me.
Effect on Microsoft's cash flow: minor speedbump.
This may appear stringent compared with the US Justice Department's settlement, but it's still no big deal for Microsoft.
As usual, the wheels of justice have arrived too little, too late.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something (Score:2, Insightful)
there are many car producers (Honda, Ford, Mercedes, Toyota, BMW, Saab, Fiat, Peugeot, Renauld and many more) which are sharing that market...
But Microsoft is NOT sharing the computer market with anyone... Microsoft do use bad practices to grab more and more share market and alternative (MacOS, Linux,
On one side, we have a competitive market, on the other side, we have a quasi-monopolistic market...
That allowed Microsoft to put a "Microsoft tax" on computer (which is slowly being removed as more and more PC makers are selling PC without Windows), to push many other poduct while making their competitor's fail (as if Honda was also selling park-doors and was using his position in selling cars to push people to only uses his doors ),
Anti-monopoly laws are to prevent such misuse of a dominant position in one market...
Re:Careful.. (Score:5, Insightful)
While US supplies did help (of course they did) they were not be all end all in the war. For example, most of the tanks that were shipped to USSR were old and crappier than the ones Russians used. Native Russian production of war-material far outstripped the amount of goods that was shipped to them by the Allied. When it comes to tanks, Russia received about 12.000 of them, most being old and/or phased out by the western powers. In comparison, production of T-34-tank alone (A tank that was far superior to anything that was shipped to USSR by USA) numbered in the tens of thousands!
In the end, the war was decided by Russian soldiers who fought the Germans.
Re:OK so they get fined and told how to distribute (Score:5, Insightful)
Currently they've only written about trying to embrace and extend certain necessary protocols to kill Linux, they've had close dealing with SCO, etc.
While at any one time there may not be enough to say MS should be shut down for, the company has had a history of outright criminal actions.
This isn't an MS thing, this is an accountability thing. If you harm your competitors though criminal actions you NEED to be punished. Otherwise we're simply saying to everyone that if you want to succeed you need to break the law, and that you won't be punished for doing so. Not if you break really big laws at any rate. Rob a 7-11 and go to jail for life. Steal billions and we'll let you keep your ill-gotten gains.
I couldn't care less if MS made a complete reversal and was now sponsoring needy children in Africa, they need to be smacked around for their past transgresions that put them where they are today. The fact they haven't stopped just makes it worse.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not really that MS have a duty to bundle other people's software, it's more that in a capitalist system they have a duty, or a requirement, to compete on a capitalist basis: in other words in a manner which produces the best deal for consumers by open competition - the so-called "American Way". The governmental view is that it's fair enough (although sadly not true) that they obtained their existing monopoly by being the best OS available but it's not okay for them to use that monopoly to prevent further competitive battles taking place. MS do not like the capitalist model (in fact, the reality is that they have never competed in the open market and won, having ridden to their current position on the back of IBM) and would much prefer a Stalinist system where the state mandates that all the people use the one approved system, enforced by DRM and controlled by one, unelected, man who is replaced only on his death. Basically, Microsoft is about as American in philosophy as as Fidel Castro.
Honda do not have a monopoly on car sales and so governments generally are not concerned about their arrangements for cd-players etc. If you don't like it then there's plenty of other car companies to choose from. Plus, of course, Honda are not as well known for bribing, lying and stealing and generally treating the law of their home country as an amusing joke as Microsoft is.
Finally, MS is a US company but they want to play hardball in the EU so that's the juristiction issue. MS don't have to sell their products in the EU, and I for one would be very happy if they didn't. Good riddance to bad rubbish, as we say.
TWW
Re:OK so they get fined and told how to distribute (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm still wondering what "fair" means as applied to Microsoft, as in "Microsoft is not playing fair". How are they not playing fair? Is bundling a media play with windows somehow unfair to the consumer?
I can see how you can say it's unfair to the competition, but again I ask if that's not ALWAYS the case? For example, most Hondas come with a rebranded Honda stereo. These days, you don't even have a choice - the car comes with a stereo. Find me one that doesn't. So is that "unfair" to JVC or Sony or other manufacturers? Seems to me the aftermarket stereo market is quite brisk.
And so the question is if you really think it is unfair, how do you make it fair?
If you require it to be a download, %99 of the people are going to download WMP. The only people who will download quicktime, for example, would have done it anyway.
If you require choice in installation (i.e. the Windows installation requires you to select none or more of WMP, QT, and Real) then what about OTHER mediaplayers? Do you have to be a big business in order to be included (mplayer, vlc, etc.)? Soon you will need several extra discs just to hold all the choices for browsers, word processers (hey! bundling word-pad is unfair!), mediaplayers, text editors... where does the line get drawn so that it's "fair" for all companies?
As far as the definition goes, I still see it being arguable that MS is not (in this case) being "unfair." If there was a contract about what consumers should get, and they weren't getting it, then they'd be unfair with respect to definition 7. Otherwise it's subjective (what's a fair profit for MS?).
In definition 8, MS is certainly consisten with the logic of increasing value (if only percieved value, which is valuable in its own right) of their products. I don't know that it's ethicly wrong to include a mediaplayer with an OS. If it is for one, it should be for all. I won't complain that mandrake includes mediaplayers. And that brings us to rules. These rules are too subjective... what makes MS a monopoly (I'm not arguing they're not)? What rules do they have to follow? Are those rules different from what everyone else has to follow? Is that, in itself, "fair?"
The reason I bring up the whole "fair" thing is because people throw that word around in a very selfish manner, which is totally against any meaning of "fair" there is. Most people here who whine that something isn't fair are complaining that they are not getting something they want, or some group they are associated with, or some company they support, are actually forced to play by the same rules everyone else plays by, and somehow that's not "fair".
It's like a very large number of people who believe rich people are not paying their "fair" share of income tax in the U.S. I don't want to get into a political argument, it's the idea of what people actually think is "fair". What is fair? Not a textbook definition, but what do you think would be fair and equitable for everyone?
Is there anything MS could do, while being a monopoly, that slashdotters would think is "fair?"
Re:It's about time. (Score:2, Insightful)
No. Capitalism is about the freedom to compete, whether there exists competition or not. In this case, the EU is deciding that Microsoft is not free to compete, and that others are not allowed to choose what Microsoft has to offer. The EU is deciding for everyone.
We all know that free software is going to win in the end, but it may be only because this or that government clubbed Microsoft enough times that they couldn't get back up. That would be sad, because open source and free software can win on pure technical superiority alone.
Bad moderating (Score:1, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Those Dumb Europeans (Score:1, Insightful)
The only difference is that MS is still trying to acquire Real and QuickTime's share. But forcing MS to offer a MS reader free version won't change the monopoly. Faced with a choice, Europeans will choose the "with" version of Windows over the "without" version, particularly if MS makes the latter more buggy.
For all their whining and rhetoric, it's easy to suspect that MS is secretly delighted by what the EU plans to do--a bit like the children's story where a rabbit, caught by a fox, desperately pleads, "Don't throw me in that briar patch."
In the end, there's no solution to the problems of a monopoly but the rise of genuine competition. Linux and open source offer just that. The EU would do better to fine MS $2 billion or so and invest that money in developing open source software.
Re:It's about time. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've written code for other people on enough systems over the years (everything from the Atari 400 to a Cray Y-MP) that I've come to realize it just doesn't matter in the end. Trying my best to find elegant, clean ways to solve the problem at hand no matter what the language or support technology is -- that's where the challenge and fun lies. If the technology base is primitive, the feeling of accomplishment is that much more complete. Whether I'm typing my code into an xterm or a Visual Studio window is way down the relevance list.
Adaptability is a good thing.
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Being find is a lot diffrent to being made to open source your product. The only time windows being opened sourced has been discussed has been by journalists and here on slashdot as a possibility that some of it might be. Even the fine is not certain for all we know they could be slapped on the wrists and told not to be so naughty, wait for something to actually happen before commenting.
Re:It's about time. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a punishment for wrongdoing. How is taking away some of their rights regarding their software any different to say, a massive fine (the government is taking my property (money), or imprisonment)? This wouldn't be happening if Microsoft had not abused (or still plans to abuse - won't come to an agreement on future conduct) it's defacto monopoly position.
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Insightful)
That depends on your definition of capitalism. The narrow definition of capitalism is that it is an economic system where capital is privately owned. The loose definition says the same, but extends it with the requirement of market freedom (the freedom to enter and compete in a market).
I would like to add that a free market ensures profit will be as low as possible. In a free market system, if your business is too profitable, someone will come along and undersell you. Microsoft right now is too profitable to thrive in a free market. To ensure stockholder value they MUST kill any and all viable competition. The free market is their enemy.
By the way, the notion of consumer harm is irrelevant. A monopoly, with a monopoly pricing model, is an inefficient way of investing capital (that is something that just about all schools of economic theory agree on), so the mere existance of a monopoly guarantees economic harm comes to society as a whole. That monopolies are tolerated is already quite the concession. That they're allowed to damage market freedom is just plain silly.
Re:OK so they get fined and told how to distribute (Score:2, Insightful)
Open Source is nice, for example, but does that mean proprietary software is "unfair?"
not open source - monopolies are unfair. There's nothing unfair about normal competition, but a monopoly has a lot of weight to throw around and that usually has the effect of sheer quantity squashing undiscriminately all competition, be it qualitatively superior or not. Think IE for instance. And no, it's not that 'monopolies aren't allowed to innovate' - it was bundling IE with the ubiquitous OS that achieved the effect, not merely producing it.
For the car analogy to work, it should read there's one hugely dominant car brand and things like roads, carwashes and so on are slowly getting 'optimized' to work with tht car first. Otherwise you can just buy a new car, no harm done. You have to do a little research beforehand, but that's unavoidable. And you have some freedom of choice in the car market, at least.
The problem with WMP for instance is that it only exists for Windows - then Windows being so widespread the move that's already happening is WMP-type formats are (about to become, anyway) just as widespread. Would you want wmv to be accepted as THE standard HDTV codec?. This in MS leveraging its Windows monopoly to dominate the media - a WMP monopoly underway and the two combined will have a tighter control on the consumer market. After all, one would want to be able to play all those wmv discs on the home computer and windows will be the only way to do it, if this happens. (disclaimer - I realise the codecs aren't tied to the player, but this is not the point - different players would come with different default codecs and they can compete on merit instead of on the default player. What if. And there's always the problem of new codecs - if MS does not provide support for ogg/ogm and sets WMP to fail to retrieve the codec everytime, will the average consumer even know where to look for them? a player monopoly cn turn into a codec monopoly quite easily.)
So we can rag on all the losers that don't know a bit from a byte or what an OS even is, but if they are the majority and they want their "free" media player/browser/whatever installed when they buy the computer, is it "fair" to tell them they can't have that? Isn't this just making things difficult for the vast majority of the people involved?
Again, you're missing the point here. no default Windows Media player != no default player! it means OEMs are free to install whatever player they want. Right now, it's quite hard (and expensive) for a oem to untie WMP from the OS - so why would they do it? MS is effectively forcing people to use their player. And no, installing a second/third additional player won't help here - WMP already has an unfair position here. Besides, doe to the competition being MS, few people would try to produce an alternative, player or codec. And that brings the other point in - opening the APIs. Would you consider making a Windows movie player when you know WMP will always work better because the OS has a special 'embrace' for it (read as 'API hooks')?
So here's fair - or rather unfair. Your Mandrake subscription won't help them play WMP formats. And if MS locks the home media in their formats, that will drive Mandrake out of business sooner than bad management, since they in particular sell a desktop-oriented distro. Right now, you can play dvds with decss/dvdread and windows files with windows codecs. That's not a 'level field' already. What will happen when the next format war is won by MS?
I guess my biggest problem with all this is that it is not going to make MS go away, or even lose marketshare.
again, this is targeted at 'future market share', mostly (and here's the hope that it has at least partial success). I for one don't want MS imposing its Windows-only formats everywhere. OS now, media already happening, mobile phones next
Re:It's about time. (Score:5, Insightful)
If MS will do that (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it will buy MSFT 1 or 2 years, but in the meantime everyone will fevereshly work on MSFT escape plans.
Re:OK so they get fined and told how to distribute (Score:3, Insightful)
Overcharging for a monopoly product to fund goods sold under cost price into another market in order to destroy the competition in that market and become a monopoly there
Using your monopoly position to leverage other advantages (eg the if you ship windows you license us all your patents' type stuff)
The EU is generally happy for monopolies to exist providing they are not abusing their position too much and we have monopoly suppliers in various business areas that have existing as monopolies for a long time without being convicted in US courts, fined in EU courts, raided in Japan and so on.
This is a lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good job EU! (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, yours is clearly on tight. Apparently you followed the 2000 election by way of Fox "News". I humbly submit a handy summary [somewhere.com] of what actually happened.
Yes, until the US Supreme Court stepped in.
Read: The Florida Supreme Court tried to enforce existing Florida election law, as it had been interpreted via precedent extending back more than a century; the US Supreme Court then unconstitutionally intervened, to ensure that Bush "won" the election.
Those are the ones the supposedly "liberal" mainstream media emphasized. There was also a full statewide recount (which, for reference, is what the Florida Supreme Court had ordered, and what would have happened if the Scalia Five had not intervened); Bush lost that one.
The Florida Supreme court did not change the rules of the election; the US Supreme Court even acknowledged as much. They then employed judicial activism at its worst by ruling that the FSC should have changed the election rules, to alleviate the supposed "equal protection" problems you dutifully parrot below --- except, of course, that if the FSC had done that, the USSC would have ruled against them because they had done so. Neat scam, huh?
Yes; specifically, such that votes whose intent was clear would weigh more heavily than votes whose intent was not clear. That's why they call it the "clear intent of the voter" standard, after all.
I think my above cite skewers that better than I could:
`Fraid they did. They imposed a deadline of December 12 for the recount, whereas under normal federal election law Florida would have had until January 6 to complete the recount. Note that the ruling in which they imposed this artificial deadline was issued at 10pm on December 12, giving Florida less than two hours to complete any recount before a deadline they wouldn't have had but for the USSC.
I don't expect you to acknowledge any of these inconvenient facts, of course; in fact, I suspect that by the second paragraph or so, you already had your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears and were loudly chanting, "La la la, George Bush was legitimately elected President, la la la, I can't heeeear you..."
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's always easy to stand on the side of the law when it's a foreign company. Perhaps a better test would be to see what standards the EU will apply to European companies. How about that Deutsche Telekom or Vivendi, hm?
Re:Not in Consumers' Best Interests (Score:3, Insightful)
By doing that they are making it significantly harder for the competition to stay viable, thereby removing consumer choice.
Re:Good job EU! (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, they would; clearly you didn't, because you don't. The reference [somewhere.com] I cited for the previous poster also neatly demolishes your "facts":
Nope. Bush's lawyers went to court to stop the recounts before Gore filed a single lawsuit, on the (justified) fear that Bush's miniscule apparent lead would evaporate and reverse if the recounts were completed.
The Gore campaign, and the Florida Supreme Court, wanted votes counted according to existing Florida election law, including the well-established "clear intent of the voter" standard.
The Supremes ruled that the Florida Supreme Court should have somehow changed Florida's election laws to correct this supposed "equal protection" problem --- except that the FSC doesn't have the authority to do that, and if they had tried to, the USSC would have ruled against them for doing so.
No, Gore won the electoral vote, too, because he won Florida. You can be forgiven for not knowing about this, because the supposedly "liberal" mainstream media quietly memory-holed the massive election fraud involved.
Funny, that's what we kept saying to Republicans during the Clinton years, but they wouldn't listen. Project much?
Re:It's about time. (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite right, and I'd go even further by saying that the only thing that stops the capitalist system being the perfect system it should be (were everyone fairly competes and prices are lowered to their minimum levels &c) is the existence of companies. They go against the capitilist ideal.
(Aside: I'm not quite clear on the details of a communists system but a perfect capitilist system (were their is an infinite number of competitors <voice style="peter jones">which is of course impossible</voice>) is probably the same as a communist system -- but without the problem of having to have someone in charge (who everyone has to trust) to co-ordinate it).
The capitalist system is quite a good idea -- maybe the least worst one -- however it only works if people spend their own money to buy/make things then sell them on themselves. If people can make lots of abstract entities (companies) which are difficult to sue, are not accountable to anyone and which can be bankcrupted without anyone having to pay (except of course all the staff, investors and people they owe money to), the whole system gets messed up -- IMO it is companies not capitalism that causes the racing scenario put foward by RMS in the GNU project manifesto thingy, and if their werrent companies their problem would be little need for regulation.
Re:given the spanish and french (Score:1, Insightful)
Ok, there is still Blair and Berlusconi the clown...
Re:Is antitrust good for everyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, I'd kind of say, that the govt. is a body that tends towards regulating and encompassing everything if left untended...and that tends to impede on the 'individuals' rights...
I mean, it is becoming more of a collective over here...the fed. govt. is starting to reach further and further where is was not before. Remember, this country started as an almost 'loose' collection of independent states. The original founders were worried about a central govt. taking too much power...and wrote our constitution to try to prevent this...but, also to strike a balance for the needs of both entities...
So, I'd say this type attitude is why we're distrustful of the govt. in a way. If it goes unchecked...it can start to infringe on your personal, individual freedoms to live your life they way you want....
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good job EU! (Score:2, Insightful)
AGAIN, even more slowly this time:
No, he didn't; Gore won the full statewide recount that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered. Again, you can be forgiven for not knowing this, since the supposedly "liberal" mainstream media tended to bury this important fact on page 37J.
Um, the standards already included the "clear intent of the voter" standard, as specified in Florida law, and as used in Florida without problem for more than a century.
Um, notice the case title is BUSH v. Gore? Bush was the plaintiff; therefore, by definition, Bush took it to court first.
Read: "I cannot refute any of the facts presented on that site, so instead I'll resort to ad hominem and demonize the site as liberally biased."
Yes, you keep repeating that over and over, like a mantra. Maybe if you say it often enough, it will come true.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Capitalism is about the freedom to compete
Freedom is a loaded word.
Everyone benefits the most under capitalism when competitors can easily enter the market to provide alternatives.
That is, when barriers to entry, whatever they may be, are minimized.
If I have to purchase licenses, sign NDA's, reverse engineer an obfuscated binary code, convince customers to download my alternative application to what appears on their Windows desktop, or contend with newly emergent "standards" that I have no idea what they are going to be, then those represent barriers to entry for me as a potential competitor.
That means inefficient markets and that means people are paying more for what they're getting and/or getting less for what they're paying.
Re:It's about time. (Score:1, Insightful)
In DK the (very capitalististic and in US terms 'republic') prime-minister said that he was appalled by the conduct of a couple of heavy-corps. According to him they were going wayyy to far in their tax-juggling, so while they technically were on the right side of the law they were ethically very dubious, and they should be above that.
Of course it's a bit silly for him to say that - there is a law, and if it doesn't work you have to fix it.
I'd REALLY like to ask him how he felt about the idea that the company concept IS intrinsicly unethical - and whether it was time to disband corps in DK
Re:Careful.. (Score:1, Insightful)
With a government like ours who needs enemies.
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Insightful)
So imagine a factory jointly owned by 10 people, and having 100 people working in it doing whatever that takes a 100 people do effectively. The factory pollutes a river, killing all the fish in it etc. Some of the owners didn't even know about it happening.
Now who is responsible and expected to pay up? Is it the owners? Is it the workers who actually performed the actions polluting the river? And responsible for how much money? If somebody should go to jail, then who would that be? Just answering these questions gives the company a legal status, defining the responsibilites in such an event. There are a lot of different issues (another example, if a factory owner dies, what happens to the factory?) that need to be defined, and defining them gives them legal status. And if there's no clear definitions, that makes the system wide open for corruption.
I think I kind of agree with you here. Making political parties, permanent political organizations, illegal might actually accomplish something. You'd be voting for an individual and his manifesto, then he'd be free to make whatever connections with other representatives during his term... In modern information society that might actually work in a productive way, voters easily finding out what his representative said before elections and what he actually did during his term, and then being able to decide if he'd still vote for him, etc.
Too bad that the political parties have the power, and they'll never allow something like this...
The point was that a society that falls behind in innovation and technology gets destroyed by others. What would limit innovation more than preventing things that require a lot people, money and organization, ie a company (private in capitalism, state-owned in communism)?
Re:It's about time. (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people have been doing a lot of comparing of what antitrust means because the concept is kind of difficult for many people to grasp.
You refer to Killing of Competition, which has some accuracy, but I prefer the comparison to what Marth Stewart was convicted of, Insider Trading.
I prefer this comparison because most people instantly understand insider trading; a person has special knowledge others don't have and can't have and they use it as an unfair advantage.
MS has used its "insider" position to do things that others can't to give it an unfair advantage. They've advertised where others can't (on the desktop for MSN) made their instalations easier than others can(Can't be easier than the media player being built-in) and they've steadfastly refused to let others share their advantages (licenses forbid others from preinstalling their software in the same way).
In fact MS is worse than Martha because the insider knowledge that gave Martha an advantage was made public the very next day; MS has fought long hard battles to keep their advantages from ever being made public. Martha has a felony conviction and will likely face prison time for her crime even though it was only a one-day advantage, but MS argues that they should be able to keep their advantage forever with no repercussions.
Martha is an individual and MS is a corporation so the remedies for this kind of broken law are, and should be different. But the intensity should be, the same. MS should get the equivilant of being behind bars for their crime and a Billion Euros doesn't even come close.
TW
If they spent the fine on funding free software... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ding Dong the Witch is Dead.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Expect the same to happen to the guy sitting 10, Downing Street in London, even though he's from the left. The issue here is that people don't trust liars to govern them, especially if it's just to please the US warmongers. And lying about bombings and wars is much more serious than lying about blowjobs.
Re:Ding Dong the Witch is Dead.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Believe it or not, I'll attempt just that.
Your point is interesting, because I think it gives a good insight of common geopolitical "easy ways".
First, I'd like to underline that we see "Europe" and "EU" described as a block, as homogenous geopolitically as the US. This is a fundamental error: the EU is basically a group of very divergent political entities. Of course, some european countries share "common roots" (being economically, strategically or politically). But even considering that, it is impossible to take the Europe - or even its reduced EU view - as a whole. Opposed opinions about terrorism in the EU alone is a good example of such strong local nuances. This is something which is unfortunately too often put aside, leading to oversimplification of the problems.
Now, keeping my previous point in mind, about the question of "defense".
It is indeed true that the current average line of politics in Europe goes more towards pacifist solutions. There are good historical reasons for that: Europe was the focal point of the two World Wars; Europe initiated colonial wars about 300 years ago; Europe ruled the world from the end of the XVth Century to the middle of the XXth. Past events showed that although war gave by itself impressive short and middle-term results, it wasn't very efficient to establish long-term objectives. All major conflicts of the XXth century confirmed this trend, being lead by Europe or other countries. Western European countries have a long colonialist past behind them, and that definitely plays a role on the way they perceive the current situation: military domination proved rather inefficient compared to economical control. This emphasis on the economical side rather than on the military side is definitely obvious in today's European diplomacy.
I'm rather curious to see what kind of massive military attacks Europe could expect from the outside. I see only a couple of options there:
- From the Middle-East or from the Northern Africa ? But those are economically dependent from Europe. They're also made of a puzzle of contradictory interests - there is no unity to expect on short or middle-term timeframe. Besides that, their military power is questionable (Israel being an exception);
- From Central Asia ? Caucasian republics are busy with their own anarchy. The two most important military forces there are Pakistan and India - but they are watching at each other, not at Europe, which is perceived as a neutral supplier, just like the USA;
- From the Far East ? But what would be the interest of China to attack and damage what is one of their most important trading partners ?
- From "the South" ? None of the countries of Central/Southern Africa or Southern America can oppose a realistic military answer to the EU;
This leaves only one possibility: Europe being endangered by Europe itself. There are very few possibilities there: most of the former "Eastern Block" is in the process of being integrated into the EU. The former Jugoslavia never attempted anything outside its borders - and doesn't present a threat to the rest of the continent. So where is that military threat above the head of Europe ? The question needs to be asked, and so far received no clear answer. Just as a side note, although the military power of Europe is inferior to the US one, it is very far from outdated or inexistent; and Europe has the financial capability to sustain large-scale, long-duration operations, something the USA cannot really afford anymore.
About the WWI, WWII and Yugoslavia: It is a common thought that "USA saved Europe". Some things to remember, though:
- The intervention of the USA during WWI was marginal and never decisive for the course of the war. If you study your history manuals, you'll see that Germans capitulated mostly because political and economical troubles starting to suffoca
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is antitrust good for everyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is EU anti-monopoly or just pro-europe? (Score:3, Insightful)
The EU Commission regularly combats European companies, in fact Microsoft is the only non-European company to be sanctioned in 2004 (so far).
Re:No, he doesn't (Score:3, Insightful)
Somehow I doubt that. A lot of us outside of the US wouldn't understand exactly what a US Conservative Republican is. An Australian Republican is different from an American Republican for instance.
I can't speak for anyone else but I hate him because he's a dangerous, obstinate, self-serving moron who fraudulently took office and tries to run the world through fear, uncertaintly and doubt. He could be a fucking democrat for all I care.
The good news is I think all us non-USians are calming down and not directing hatred towards Americans in general. We hate your leaders, we hate your corporation-focused infrastructure and seemingly blind US focus. We don't hate you.
To all republican voters: we feel sorry for you. You must live in a pretty narrowly-focused universe.
Cheers
Stor