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.'"
Re:It's about time. (Score:5, Interesting)
Time will tell.
Rigor Morty
This is less about MS.. (Score:1, Interesting)
Microsoft must have a plan (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe fines and new versions of OS's is OK with them. Hm.
Good job EU! (Score:2, Interesting)
Reignite Competition (Score:5, Interesting)
For those not sure if this will help the US adoption of alternate products, it will. Businesses aren't just local, they import products, export products, and deal in Europe all the time. When Europeans move to other products, the US will make the move, or force Microsoft to adopt the standards the EU companies do.
This doesn't spell the end for Microsoft, but rather, it helps to open up a standards based computing environment. One where if your product is closed and completely proprietary, and threatens vendor lock-in, it won't be well appreciated, nor will it really be possible.
Appeals? (Score:5, Interesting)
forced to 'open up' windows (Score:3, Interesting)
tell me, what6's the solution if a monopoly takes on a government, by closing up shop? closes all offices in EU member countries, and no longer licenses it's products for use in those countries..
Hmm, people will import it, and microsoft won't have to support it... hmmm...
Re:Microsoft must have a plan (Score:5, Interesting)
Go running to Washington, and ask for a trade embargo to be imposed on European software?
Re:10% fine and removal of WMP? (Score:2, Interesting)
The commission, as well as rival software makers, have argued that bundling programs such as Media Player into Windows is anticompetitive, because it puts rival music and video players such as Real Networks' RealOne Player and Apple's QuickTime at a disadvantage.
Does anyone know if this is can be compared to the whole Internet Explorer uninstall battle? I've never had any problems with WMP interfering. Realoneplayer and quicktime all provide free versions, what competition is there? Quicktime by default doesn't even play most video codecs. I don't understand exactly how this will change the way general people use WMP, realplayer, or quicktime. And does the EU enforcing their rules even effect the US at all?
Re:Eventually no apps? (Score:1, Interesting)
What if M$ pulls the plug on Europe? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's about time. (Score:4, Interesting)
IIRC the judiciary pursues what the head of law enforcement wants it to. The head of law enforcement is the cheif executive. The president.
If the president doesn't want to enforce a law or wants to enforce it only with a wink and a nod, that's their discretion.
Now, it's nice to see that, once again Europe is showing some balls. I really expect there's some phone calling between Washington DC and Europe trying to weasel some leniency in this matter. You and I won't be privy to these calls, but in the wake of the Spanish Election, this is another instance of that disorganized herd of sheep standing up for their own beliefs. Another blow, really, for the current administration (which went all limp-wristed on Microsoft.)
By this time we should be getting used to the rest of the world questioning the US goverment stands and going their own way. As the economies of Europe and China approach their full potential, so grow their clout. Too bad we've been wasting some checks over the years, now they're going to be in shorter supply.
Why the settlements failed. (Score:4, Interesting)
To waive the ruling, Monti asked Microsoft to commit not to distort competition by bundling peripheral software programs to Windows in the future. Microsoft, it would appear, declined.
It seems that real problem was not about including WMP in Windows, but Microsoft refusing to stop doing similar things in the future.
Political... (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:I want to know... (Score:3, Interesting)
Is EU anti-monopoly or just pro-europe? (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if it's just easier for the EU to do this type of thing to an outsider to Europe as opposed to an already entrenched monopoly that started in Europe. Is this just protectionism, or will the EU actually stand up to all Monopolies, foreign and domestic?
Who decides what should and shouldn't be included? (Score:2, Interesting)
Who are we to say what they can and can't add to their OS? If I released a third party calculator application, could I demand they remove calc.exe from Windows? How about telnet and ftp? Both of these have commercially available equivalents. So do disk utitilies, that are pretty much equivalent to disk defragmenter. Should Windows come with no applications at all? Can they even justify allowing them to bundle windows explorer (Not IE - I mean the file system browser)? It would be easy enough to write an alternative.
If I release an application for a platform that already contains the equivalent, I have no justification to complain that they're not playing fair. I can either make it better than the one that comes with the OS, try to sell it to the OS vendor, or try making my money some other way.
Re:A chilling phrase if you're MS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What if M$ pulls the plug on Europe? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ding Dong the Witch is Dead.. (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not clear whether or not the effective monopoly of Microsoft has benefited the world. Quite possibly the standards setting effect of the monopoly has done more good than bad in the long term. However perpetual market distortion cannot be tolerated indefinitely.
Part of the problem is determining exactly what should be done to remove distortions from the market whilst not throwing away global standards. It is not clear that the proposed fines and unbundling will do anything more than split the market up into different competing standards - all owned by American companies incidentally.
What would happen if... (Score:1, Interesting)
Yes Please! (Score:1, Interesting)
Please, Microsoft! Stop supporting us!
- Just another Old European
Re:Ding Dong the Witch is Dead.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:the double standard (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft, on the other hand, hurts all computer users, which is pretty much everyone in the EU.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something (Score:2, Interesting)
You are, however, making the choice to buy Honda. It wouldn't even occur to 95% of people to choose anything other than a Windows PC such is their effective and pervasive monopoly on consumer computing.
"IMHO, if Microsoft is forced to open their source to the European market, they should just pull the plug. Don't sell it anymore, revoke all European lisences, and tell them to install Linux. You know for a fact that the general populus would flip. Most of them would flip at the idea."
Well, they wouldn't go for Linux, they would go for Apple instead because Apple have the muscle to market themselves as a Windows alternative in such a situation, the Linux distros do not. This has obvious consequences for major US tech companies such as Dell and Intel who would see a market of 400 million people disappear over the course of a year.
"OK, last thing. I also don't understand what jurisdiction the European market has over MS. If they are an American based company, how can they order MS to open their source and include other versions of Web Browsers and Media Players."
If I went and murdered some poor sap in Wisconsin, could I claim that the US courts didn't have authority because I'm a European based human?
We'll see what happens soon enough (Score:2, Interesting)
Anywho, I hope the EU hits Microsoft with the maximum $3 billion fine and forces them to separate their Media Player from the OS. In doing so, the EU will not only make a dent in MS's much-vaunted cash reserves, but they'll also hammer home the point that their strategy of tying apps to their OS to invade new markets won't fly. And if hitting them in the coffers won't significantly prevent them from subsidizing these strategies, it will definitely raise a hue-and-cry amongst their shareholders, to whom Microsoft is ostensibly beholden.
Too bad we don't have a government that will take this kind of action here in the US, tho.
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Interesting)
please provide and example of where the EU has confiscated someones property rights
Re:Ding Dong the Witch is Dead.. (Score:3, Interesting)
What exactly do YOU "get" that the Europeans don't? How, exactly, are you so special? I assume you're American. Nobody else would be so pathetically crass to make such an ignorant statement.
The country you live in is one of the safest in the world from terrorist attacks. Europeans have been suffering them for centuries. What, exactly, is it that makes them not see this special vision that you have? Where does this special understanding of yours come from?
Were you a rescuer on 9/11? Were you a victim? Did someone in your family or one of your friends suffer? What gives you this special understanding of terroism that these people who have dealt with it since before your great great granddaddy got his nuts in a twist don't have?
NOTHING. You're just a loudmouth moron. You just have a superiority complex and "god help these dirty, stupid Europeans who are tired of fighting all the time. They just aren't CHOSEN like I am, they don't see the beautiful path that is set forth like I do!"
If you really are American, I'm sorry to have to share that nationality with you and I hope your incredible ignorance doesn't reflect on all of us as badly as it may. Do us all a HUGE favor and just keep your mouth shut before you make the world think we're all as stupid as you.
You want to piss around with people who aren't afraid to call bullshit on you for being the idiot that you are? Go ahead, asswipe. Take me on once. We'll see just who here is a little coward because I'm NOT hiding behind the AC name. Although, frankly, I don't blame the AC you've been sparring with for not even wasting the time on you to show the courtesy of posting with a face.
Is antitrust good for everyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
But is anti-trust law really good for most people in the long run? I'm no economist but I have first-hand experience about the side-effects of the anti-trust law.
I can say from my experience that if Microsoft were forced to its knees, most slashdotters would suffer in the long run.
When AT&T was a monopoly, scientists, engineers, and technicians had a great time in the telecom industry. There were a lot of talents working in the then lucrative telecom industry and a lot of innovations funded by AT&T's phone bill income, including UNIX (I am not saying AT&T is the sole creator of UNIX but a very significant contributor), the father of LINUX.
After AT&T was broken up, the phone call price dropped significantly, a big short term benefit to most consumers. But the drop in revenue forced out a lot of talents from the industry because there were no more money to hire them. I know a lot of talented engineers who spent years in the telecom industry but had to throw away all the domain expertise to switch career to wall street.
I think in a sense Microsoft's high profit margin is good news for LINUX vendors. That means they can charge a lower price than Windows and still make a decent profit to fund long term R&D. If Microsoft were forced to compete in a market where prices go down the toilet, like what happened to the telecom industry, then LINUX vendors will suffer as well. When the money flowing into the software industry dwindles, most slashdotters will lose their career just like what happened to the engineers in the telecom industry. Right now it is a business strategy to give some open source software away for free in the hope that customers will buy the enterprise version, by that time you will be forced to give away a lot more than even the open source people want. The entire software industry can no longer sustain all the R&D going on right now. Is that really a good thing for consumers in the long run?
Is it really a good idea for government to decide what is good for consumers? You have to think about the answer without bias. Just because the government sided with you this time doesn't mean it is a good thing for you in the long run.
Re:A chilling phrase if you're MS (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:OK so they get fined and told how to distribute (Score:3, Interesting)
Splitting up their products and selling them separately would be "fair". Bundling add-ons with a monopoly product is not fair.
Think back to the days when AT&T was the monopoly phone provider. AT&T sees the growing popularity of overnight delivery and says, "hey, we're a communication company, and overnight delivery is a type of communication. Let's get into that business as well."
At this point though FedEx is well established as the industry leader in overnight delivery. AT&T can't compete in this market without some help so it decides that free overnight delivery will be included with all phone subscriptions. At the same time it raises the price of phone service from $20/month to $100/month. In AT&T's version of events the new service is "free" and the price increase is unrelated, but obviously that service has a cost and that cost is being passed to consumers.
Microsoft would have you believe that Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player are integral parts of the OS and are given to consumers totally free of charge. They refuse to unbundle these components and reduce the price of the product appropriately. That's simply not fair. The line has to be drawn somewhere so that other companies can produce products for the Windows platform without the threat of Microsoft bundling in anything that proves comercially successful.
The problem is that every time they get called on this nonsence, the punishment is laughable. If they are allowed to continue selling the bundled version while being forced to sell an unbundle version at a slightly reduced price no-one will go for it. They have to be forced to unbundle conpletely and spin-off the portions of the company that produce the bundled items.
In the AT&T example I gave it would be like AT&T offering phone service w/o overnight delivery for $99.50. Obviously consumers are going to pay the 50 cents and get the overnight delivery service. The only way to avoid the problem is to tell AT&T that they simply can't get into the overnight delivery business.
Re:the double standard (Score:3, Interesting)
I am all for the EU decision vis a vis M$. Hooray! Kill the bastards, etc. As for De Beers and diamonds...don't get me started. Diamonds are plentiful. They are NOT worth what is paid for them as they come a dime a dozen. What De Beers and the rest of the cartel do is create an artificial scarcity of diamonds totally at odds with reality so they can charge loads of money for a frickin rock. To do this, they also setup a monstrous situation in Africa for those who live around, or work in, the diamond mines.
How's about the EU (and USA) get together and eliminate the diamond monopoly which is artificially and improperly limiting the amount of otherwise plentiful diamonds and creating, as a direct result, a very bad humanitarian problem for those in Africa who live around the mines?
If you want to deal with a commodity that is truly valuable due to a very real scarcity, then you should deal with metals like platinum, titanium, gold, and the like. Get out of the frickin' rock collecting business.
Re:It's about time. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: It's about time. (Score:3, Interesting)
'Intellectual Property' is only guaranteed on condition that it is for a limited period, and that the holder doesn't do anything detrimental to society with them. On those grounds alone, the EU has a right to confiscate MS's property rights on Windows. They didn't come to an agreement that would have made both sides happy, so MS may lose them.
Thing is, without a society, a framework for property to exist in, there is no property because there's nothing to enforce it. Sad, but that's the way it is.
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems to me that the easiest thing to do here would be to get rid of the concept of companies (see my aunt post [slashdot.org]).
Re:It's about time. (Score:5, Interesting)
What is needed is something that will actually repair the damage caused by MS's illegal behavior. Microsoft needs to be held responsible for the damage they caused, which means that they need to pay the price. The damage is so significant to Thousands of companies worldwide, it needs to be a very large price - one that will reinstate true competition.
Personally, I could care less about the code which we all know sucks - I want the file formats, protocols, and API's opened. May need to force a few patents open too (at least RAND licensing with an open source exemption.)
Going back to the axe murderer land owner (poor) analogy, think of it as a life sentance of restitution.
Re:It's about time. (Score:2, Interesting)
Are you saying that I could actually get money for giving blowjobs? But this is like programming in a language I like, and getting money!
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Interesting)
More so you can't sue the actual people responsible but instead have to sue the company
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Interesting)
I had the same sentiment myself - http://www.eskimo.com/~johnnyb/spiritual/EthicalP
and also
http://www.eskimo.com/~johnnyb/spiritual/Undire
I think you said it better, though.
Re:It's about time. (Score:4, Interesting)
Capital.
Capitalism is about allowing capital to be gathered from many persons to accomplish things that are more expensive than one person could ever hope to be able to afford. If everything had to be accomplished by one person, not a lot would be accomplished... As soon as you have just two people doing something together, you have a company, wether it has a legal status or not. As soon as you have something jointly owned by more than one person, you have some kind of a company. You're not planning to make owning things together illegal, are you?
Another purpose of a company is shared risk. If people would have to risk everything for anything they do, not a lot would get accomplished.
And there's a reason why you might want to have a lot accomplished. For example ancient American Indians probably didn't really have the concept of a company as we know it, and their society probably worked quite nicely too, until the Europeans came and slaughtered them in the process of the birth of the USA...
I'm slightly on Microsoft's side... (Score:3, Interesting)
As a business owner it's hard for me to comprehend. In my line of work there is way more work than there is developers to do projects, so I don't worry about all the other developers out there.
However, ultimately if I could handle the load, I would absolutely love to be number one and weed out competition? Is that wrong? Maybe I need an attitude adjustment.
Not so much for the money but for the glory of being number 1 and having the best products and services and having everyone come to me because they know I'm the best.
I guess I'm looking at a company like Wal-Mart who kind of falls in the gorilla shoes when it comes to generic merchandise and even groceries. It seems like they've done a lot of pushing and knocked out a lot of local businesses here and there, but at the same time they've shown some restraint. Is this soley to avoid being nailed with anti-trust laws?
The only thing in my eyes that goes against Microsoft is that it's not like it was one man's baby that led them to the top. If Bill G. had developed the original software and been active in development all the way to now and it wasn't a corporation would it still be wrong?
Or a better question... If they hadn't done all the gorilla tactics of forcing other companies out of business and they had gotten where they are just by having a superior product (i'm not saying they do, I'm saying what if...) would they still be a monopoly?
I guess all these monopoly like tactics are things I take for granted as just agressive moves to win business. I'd be interested in reading over the actual law to see what it says you can and can't do.
Easy decision for the EU (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder how much the adventure in Iraq has affected the EU's position towards MS?
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:the double standard (Score:3, Interesting)
Geez, that's easy! Just the other day, I went to buy a ruby ring. The store would only sell me a ring with a diamond. I reiterated my desire for ring with a ruby, not a diamond. The store said they couldn't sell the ring with a ruby -- if they did so, De Beers would vastly increase the price on any future diamonds the store purchased for their rings. I asked for a plain ring, without a gemstone of any kind, thinking I could try and install a ruby on my own. Again, the store refused, although they pointed out that I could buy the diamond ring, remove the diamond after I brought the ring home, toss it in the trash, and then install the ruby if that's what I really wanted.
The store was obviously more concerned about the economic penalties of disobeying De Beers' policies than gaining the business of people who preferred a choice of gemstones, like rubies instead of diamonds. It's truly frightening how much influence De Beers has in the ring-selling industry!
Oh, wait -- I seem to have made a few typos...
Whoops -- I guess I don't actually have a story that applies to De Beers after all. My apologies for straying so far off the parent poster's topic...