EU Fines Microsoft $613 Million, Officially 1186
Decaffeinated Jedi writes "As reported by CNN.com, the European Union has hit Microsoft with a record US$613 million fine after a five-year investigation, finding the company guilty of abusing the 'near-monopoly' of the Windows operating system. Microsoft has been given 90 days to make a European version of Windows available without a media player and 120 days to give programming codes to rivals in the server market to allow 'full interoperability' with desktops running Windows. Microsoft plans to appeal the decision." Other readers point to coverage at
the BBC, ZDNet, Reuters (here carried by Yahoo!), and abc.au.net.
Quite right too (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the 'orders' on API documentation? Woohoo.
Microsoft is the perfect example of how capitalism needs a tight rein for it to work to the benefit of people, not big corporations!
Re:Quite right too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quite right too (Score:3, Insightful)
poor poor SCO lawyers (Score:5, Funny)
Where is the deterence? (Score:5, Insightful)
How can the punishment serve a deterent, if the fine does not hurt??
Re:Where is the deterence? (Score:5, Insightful)
120 days to provide FULL documentation on Windows code interfaces? EXPLICITLY to help their competitors have a level playing field on the Windows platform?
The precedent set by this and implications for the future?
OW! I think it hurts a LOT. Plus being 'ordered' to do stuff really dents the pride and knocks the wind out of them.
The implication too is, "we could have gone for 10% of revenues", watch yourself.
Re:Where is the deterence? (Score:5, Interesting)
If true, does that mean Wine will be able to soon run ALL Windows apps perfectly?
The $ is chicken feed for M$, and unbundling Media PLayer doesn't sound like that big of a deal, either. IF the API's are truly going to be Out There for us then that's a BIG BIG deal, right?
Re:Where is the deterence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where is the deterence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the fine is not the punishment. That's just the wrist-slap, although admittedly it's a harder one than normal. Because of the high value the press are focusing on this, but it's not the real action.
No, the meat of this decision is the forcing of the unbundling and the opening up of specifications. That's the punishment, not the cash.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Where is the deterence? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps more to the point, there is the unstated (by CNN, at least) threat of further action and/or fines if the deadlines are not met. Well, that's how I interpret "they've been given 90 days to comply", anyway... Now that the punishment has been handed out, it will be a lot easier to increase the fine f
Re:Where is the deterence? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Where is the deterence? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Where is the deterence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, $613 million is a serious figure. Nick Leeson broke the Barings Bank in the '90s on of just over twice that amount. Enron (partly) collapsed over a $563 million deficit. Remember, it's not like those $50 billion are in a big jar that everybody can take some of when they feel like it. Divisions are accountable, managers are accountable, books have to be kept. Combined with the other rulings, this should be understood as a severe penalty for Microsoft Europe.
Re:Where is the deterence? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think people saying that this amount of money is nothing to microsoft are being a bit naive. Just because MS can afford it doesn't mean that they don't appreciate the fact that this is still a hell of a lot of money. The last thing MS wants is a precedent that whenever they get caught for breaking a rule the local government is entitled to take $500 million off of them.
Re:Where is the deterence? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I care about the economy-destroying stock speculators, mind you.
Re:Where is the deterence? (Score:3, Insightful)
It will be a reference point for all the governments that could wish to sue Microsoft.
Landmarks in the judiciary system are important. The EU ruling is the first one concerning Microsoft.
And some people at the Comission just asked to apply the highest fine, ie 10% of the benefits. But the EU can't afford an open war like that, at least not for the moment...
Regards,
jdif
Unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Of course they didn't know. They just set up shop in a different country and assumed that US law would prevail. What's wrong with that ? (Hint: lots!)
Another quote:
Well, no wonder they're going to appeal, that removes 90% of their business practice!
Simon.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder who'll be picking up their copy of the relevant code in 120 days to help with Linux coding efforts to provide Windows interoperability?
Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Informative)
No one, since it is explicitly stated that they are ordered to release API info, NOT source code.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unbelievable (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it is less attractive. I mean, people buy 'all inclusive' bundles in the form of game consoles.
The problem is that the additional components (like media player) cost more development time, and thus increase the price of the OS.
So if you're just running on a 286 that can't play divxs anyway, why should you subsidise those that want to watch videos?
The other problem is of course, that their market position makes things really difficult for competitors to get a viable product off the ground. How
The Question is: How are they going to pay? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the EU is smart it will force Microsoft to donate to CASH to open source, or educational groups, thus allowing people to break the Monoply by their own choice.
Re:The Question is: How are they going to pay? (Score:5, Informative)
There is no question.
You get fined for speeding you don't get to choose to pay it using luncheon vouchers.
You pay cash and it goes to the EU's exchequer.
Well, kinda (Score:5, Funny)
Hilarity ensued, of course.
Re:Well, kinda (Score:4, Funny)
Would that require MS to buy all chicken farms in USA/EU, making thus a new monopolly?
Re:The Question is: How are they going to pay? (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's exactly what's happening. Donating software to schools isn't act of good will from Microsoft. It's just a clever marketing tactic.
1.Donate software to schools
What do you think the MS vs. Pentagon [slashdot.org] thing was all about?2.People get use it
3.People will by your products because they are used to them
4.Profit!
why WMP ? (Score:5, Interesting)
And what about the java fuckups ? The Samba debacle ? The OEM backmailing ?
I don't get it....
Re:why WMP ? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you know someone is evil you get 'em on whatever you can manage.
Re:why WMP ? (Score:5, Insightful)
ITMS vs. MSMS (MicroSoft Music Store).
I don't want my music in
Re:why WMP ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you think uncle Steve will oblige, just because he's from a somewhat smaller, trendier company?
I am so sick of this 'Apple is the underdog' bs. WMA sucks. Apple's formats also suck in a number of ways, although perhaps not quite as many.
Re:why WMP ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA and their counterparts can sue whoever they like to protect cds as a viable distribution method (this is what they really want to do, regardless of what anyone says), but digital content is here right now and it isn't going away. I think everyone knows this.
The EU is picking this particular "feature" of Windows to blast MS on simply because of its relevance to future markets. And besides . . . why do you think MS bitched so much about having to take it off? If it was an innocent thing, they wouldn't have built it into the OS as a component (they did do that, yes? I know for sure IE is) AND they would have just taken it off when asked to do so.
Re:why WMP ? (Score:5, Insightful)
if only there was a european competitor to IE ready to start making a fuss,
ahah.... we have a candidate [opera.com].
Doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)
Before you start bashing EU as anti-American (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Before you start bashing EU as anti-American (Score:4, Insightful)
"The biggest antitrust punishment until now was a 462-million-euro fine imposed against Roche Holding of Switzerland in November 2001, for its role in a series of vitamin cartels."
Re:Before you start bashing EU as anti-American (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Before you start bashing EU as anti-American (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Before you start bashing EU as anti-American (Score:5, Interesting)
Allthougth it is the biggest fine imposed by the EU, it is only 8% of thier EU sales, other companies have been hit harder in real terms for monopolistic practices.
The fine means nothing really, it is the other conditions which hurt, but the US courts have on numerous occassions ruled against MS monopolistic practices. Had they achieved thier stated aim there would have been no case.
They will never pay (Score:5, Insightful)
The IHT was reporting (Score:4, Informative)
They said a judge had a forthcoming ruling on that issue. It seems quite possible to me the ruling would go in favor of the government, since it is quite clear that a remedy that begins in five years would be as good as no remedy at all-- it is quite easy to look at how quickly the tech market moves and how quickly MS has been able to take over previous previous tech markets once they start putting the veritcal-monopoly moves on, and argue that if the remedy waits for the end of the appeals process, it will be too late to do anything to help the competitors the remedy is meant to address.
Whether this has changed since then I do not know.
On the other hand (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They will never pay (Score:4, Informative)
More filthy rich lawyers (Score:3, Informative)
Hopefully the EU will be able to make the ruling stick in the end. The fine may not be all that much to MS, but being forced to unbundle Media Player, etc could have quite an effect on their future strategies.
Time lines (Score:5, Insightful)
In the meantime, the victims such as smaller competing firms and consumers have long since picked up the pieces and moved on. The companies at the amepx of it all aren't even relevant anylonger (Netscape?).
Until the law can put some spring in their step, a $600 Million fine 10 years after putting awa your competition is paultry.
Break up Microsoft - THAT is the solution!
*cough*yeahright. (Score:3, Interesting)
In the end, this court decision isn't going to amount to anything. Competition has already been hurt. Customers aren't going to want to pay the same price for a version of Windows without WiMP. Competitors won't be given access to Microsoft's API's; MS will appeal and drag this out for a very long time. And in the end it will ignore the court orders, just like it did in the US, knowing that its punishment will be yet another lengthy court process which it can drag out and then ignore again, all the while telling its customers that government is trying to raise prices and stifle innovation. Maybe it'll even try to settle by again offering to install Microsoft software in schools for free (until the license has to be renewed in a few years, that is).
Re:*cough*yeahright. (Score:4, Insightful)
You sure don't understand basic economics. The vendor will charge whatever the market is willing to pay, no matter how much it cost to make the product.
That's why about 90% of the Windows- and Office-prices is pure profit while they are losing money on XBox, WinCE and many other things.
If anything, the punishments will lower prices for Europeans because of increased competition. Just look at Thailand where Microsoft dropped their Win+Office prices from 600$ to 37$: http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32110.html [linuxinsider.com]
Always remember: Only the loyal customers get ripped off. Those who for example run their servers on Unix get huge discounts (like Munich)
Wait, "full interoperability"? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the latter, that's absolutely fantastic. That means we could start seeing 100% compatible versions of Wine, freed from the difficulty and endless trial=and-error of duplicating an API where so much is undocumented and "bug compatibility" is so crucial.
If the former, that this means MS has to divulge the necessary information for third parties to be fully compatible with WMP serving, that's not quite so interesting.
Incidentally, I want to nominate this as the most bullshit argument MS apologists have ever put forth, ever.
Analysts say by forcing Microsoft to offer a version of Windows XP without Media Player, consumers could pay higher costs.
"If it were to be obliged to offer versions both with and without Media Player, then that would mean we would probably have double the number of consumer PC configuration in our shops. Of course this is product that is built before it is sold," says Brian Gammage from computer consultancy Gartner.
Wow. So Microsoft using Windows revenues to subsidize a hugely complex and unnecessary movie player and set of movie codecs doesn't increase costs to consumers, but Microsoft having to print up two differing sets of cheap cardboard to sell in stores does. Amazing.
Re:Wait, "full interoperability"? (Score:4, Informative)
Here is the EU press release [eu.int], that should be more accurate than that various news agencies make up.
Re:Wait, "full interoperability"? (Score:5, Interesting)
In order to restore the conditions of fair competition, the Commission has imposed the following remedies: As regards interoperability, Microsoft is required, within 120 days, to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. This will enable rival vendors to develop products that can compete on a level playing field in the work group server operating system market. The disclosed information will have to be updated each time Microsoft brings to the market new versions of its relevant products. To the extent that any of this interface information might be protected by intellectual property in the European Economic Area(6), Microsoft would be entitled to reasonable remuneration. The disclosure order concerns the interface documentation only, and not the Windows source code, as this is not necessary to achieve the development of interoperable products.
Sounds like to me that they would have to provide the APIs (not the source!) to the SMB file sharing protocol, and, for instance, allow anyone, including Macs and Linux, to work seamlessly with Active Directory and Exchange. Note: Microsoft will be able to "reasonably charge" for that information. Personally, I think this is a big thing for getting OS X into the Enterprise; I can certainly forsee Apple paying for that access.
Re:Wait, "full interoperability"? (Score:3, Informative)
Sure. Except there are two things.
The fine is irrelevant (Score:3, Insightful)
This is something that should have been done here in the US long ago, but unfortunately our government is for sale to the highest bidder.
EU statement.. (Score:5, Informative)
Assuming MS Pays... (Score:5, Interesting)
-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]
Re:Assuming MS Pays... (Score:5, Informative)
UK Open Source Draft for Public Comment (Score:4, Informative)
I tried to post this article but for some reason it was rejected in favor a completely pointless article about firewire and video cameras!
Anyhow it is important and should have been accepted!
to briefly put it;
Anyone here interested in Open Source, and supporting it in UK
government should digest this document and send your support/comments/insight
heres the link [govtalk.gov.uk] with downloads and stuff.
Its an important document and those here interested should read it and post related comments/ suggestions to the email address on that page.
What they are seeking to do is support evaluate both Open Source and Proprietary solutions; whilst doing their utmost to avoid vendor lock-in ; as is the case with Microsoft bundling IE & WMP (etc) with windows.
The document is an Open Draft, that means that right now it is not set in stone, and liable for change. If anyone here reads it and thinks it should be changed in anyway I would advise letting them know.
Troll -1 :) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Troll -1 :) (Score:4, Funny)
You fail it (Score:4, Informative)
I RTFA, and I didn't see: what happens if they don't comply, or comply 1/2 and it's found that it doesn't cut it?
And this will be a bigger story if/when the sanctions immediately apply, instead of being enjoined until the end of the appeals process. Could go either way, I guess; but the first wouldn't allow Microsoft to play a waiting game.
Charge for Code? (Score:5, Interesting)
Will the EU allow that crap too, or will it realize that Microsoft's largest competitors are likely to be OSS developers and a hundred-grand license would be about the same as not actually releasing it to their competitors?
This decision arbitrates against free software (Score:3, Insightful)
For the Europeans: this is one more reason to reject software patents. "Encore un effort
Curiously the French version of the press release says "reasonable and non-discriminatory" while the English only says only "reasonable". I guess that's meant to please the French and Microsoft at the same time
I cannot believe... (Score:5, Insightful)
For once look at the big picture, and forget that Microsoft is an American company, and the EU filed a European verdict:
Microsoft is a major global player in an international market ruled mainly by European and American companies together.
In this playing field it is only fair that a referree - no matter if US or EU - rules when a player crosses the legal line.
It is to the benefit of both the Europeans as the Americans in the long term, and we will pick the fruits of this decision in time.
Not To Be TOO Bitter... (Score:5, Insightful)
If our government had stuck to its guns from the first time of many that MS was taken to court, the tech landscape here would be vastly different, I think. Hey, BeOS might even be alive, and Linux and Macs would CERTAINLY have more momentum than they do!
Even if MS pays this in cash rather than software, it's still pocket change, currently sitting happily in the MS account and earning them interest. So they won't earn as much interest this year. Big deal. This won't change anything. At best it's less money for MS to pay SCO with.
Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
"Requires Microsoft Media Player 9.0, greater to run".
Well, it worked the last time!
several year appeal (Score:3, Insightful)
Swift justice, it seems, works just as fast in Europe as it does here.
Doing the math ... (Score:3, Interesting)
The EU fine is $613 Million.
$613 Million / $30 Billion = 0.024
So ... they fined Microsoft roughly 2% of one year's sales. This "proportionate" and "balanced" ruling was because the "near-monopoly" tried for several years to "shut competitors out of the market". (quotes are from the EU Commission)
This is how losing 2% of my gross income would impact me on a weekly basis.
(myGrossIncome * 0.02) / 52 = myWeeklyImpactIfFined
So what do you casually spend more than 2% of your gross income on? Lunch? State sales (or VAT) tax? Gasoline? Porn?
The fine is neither harsh nor effective. Anyone want to take a guess at how much the competitors have lost every year?
US Government not happy? (Score:3, Insightful)
"This ruling is yet another example of the EU assaulting a successful American industry and policies that support our economic growth," said US Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Microsoft's home state of Washington. She called on President George Bush to "engage" with Brussels on the case.
Re:US Government not happy? (Score:4, Informative)
How dare the EU declare war on and infringe the human rights of a lovely corporation like MS who just happens to have made [opensecrets.org] substantial [opensecrets.org] contributions [opensecrets.org] to [opensecrets.org] Ms. Murray's campaign fund. (~$200000).
How far does "interoperability" extend? (Score:4, Informative)
Personally, I hope it extends all the way. Imagine the Wine team not only having access to the Windows source (They sort of do now due to the leak, but they can't do anything with it), but being given legal permission by the government to use it, with Microsoft's help!
So, can somebody clear up how far this extends?
Re:Money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Within 120 days Microsoft is required "to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. This will enable rival vendors to develop products that can compete on a level playing field in the work group server operating system market. The disclosed information will have to be updated each time Microsoft brings to the market new versions of its relevant products." This is at least in theory a pretty absolute requirement; Microsoft has to publish whatever it takes in order for rival vendors' servers "to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers, and it must provide updates where necessary.
Microsoft currently licence this and it is this which they use to sell server OSes and apps using the ease of interoperability as a main reason. Server OSes and stuff such as MS Exchange earn them alot more than desktop OEM versions of XP. Ease of interoperability is what is getting companies to sign up to the ripoff Licencing 6 scheme. The requirement to open up the server interoperability means that Linux will go storming in big style.
Re:Money? (Score:3, Interesting)
Greetings,
Re:I hope.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I hope.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I hope.... (Score:3, Insightful)
US had more risk but also more to gain (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the economic balance does not explain the US failure to correct this economically damaging condition, there must have been another reason. Probably plain old bribes, or just stupidity from the part of the Bush government to see the economic benefit to have sound markets with sound competition.
Re:I hope.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The EU will very likely stick to its guns. The only reason why the US didn't begins with 'W'.
It's a good thing that the EU is made up of so many different countries... in this case anyway.
Re:I hope.... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, as a citizen of the EU, I'd advise against getting your hopes too high. Our legal systems have considerable ability to delay and obstruct, for companies with enough money and determination.
The US DoJ looked set to implement a proper solution just a few years ago, but the election of President Bush put an end to that.
Changes of government in European states are not infrequent and can change the direction of the whole loose alliance that is the EU. Don't overlook the possibility that if the EU's governments move to the right, this case may be damaged.
In fairness though, Europe's courts are less subject to policital interference, so here's to hoping!
Re:I doubt it... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I hope.... (Score:5, Funny)
The more rational elements of the left repudiate these people, and appologise for their claims. All the wrongs in the world are not, in fact, the fault of President Bush.
But the overwhelming majority are
Re:I hope.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The most incredible thing (and kind of funny in a shocking way) is that Microsoft is trying to use that very reason as some kind of excuse as to why it shouldn't be fined in Europe. The argument runs something along the lines of "... but we can do this in America! You can't fine us if we can do it in America!"
Hey, news flash for you Billy boy! In Europe, you comply with European law, and it's a lot harder to buy a few politicians to exert political pressure on the justice system.
-- james
Re:I hope.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it does, when they sell them in Europe. American gun manufacturers can't sell their Saturday night specials in Europe just because they're legal in the US.
And in any case, MS has lots of subsidiaries in Europe, they're the ones that would be fined, and ultimately have their assets sold if they didn't pay.
Bill's worst nightmare would be a large MS-free zone that would breed competing software. He'll delay as long as possible, but will comply rather than abandon the EU market.
Re:I hope.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Things like the BeOS lockout are what I'd think should be the focus of antitrust type suits against MS, not value add to Windows.
Re:I hope.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are a monopoly on desktop OSs. There is no problem with that in itself. What they have been convicted of is of leveraging that monopoly to gain an unfair advantage in other markets. Namely, the media player market.
Re:Huh??? (Score:5, Insightful)
They come out with a similar product, bundle it in the OS and then force/threaten their OEM's not to install the competitors. That is what is wrong.
Let's take your list. What if IBM/HP/DELL/Gateway decided to bundle:
OpenOffice
FileMaker
Winzip
RealPlaye
Mozilla (and change the default browser)
GIMP
Suns/IBM's JDK with Eclipes
Could they do this for almost no cost? Yep. Then Microsoft would suddenly raise the cost of EACH version of windows that IBM/HP or Dell buys (Like they did to IBM. Dell got Windows for ~$10 while IBM got it for ~$100.00, and they wouldn't sign any deal with IBM for MONTHS after the new OS was released, thus killing IBM desktop sales during that time)
So yes, I agree that I want a bunch of stuff bundled with my OS. (With the ability to not load it) But I hope that you would agree that most people want the best software bundled at the lowest price. We currenlty don't have that CHOICE. That is what is hurting consumers.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hope.... (Score:5, Informative)
If Windows was 30% of the market share, MS could add a media player and increase value, sure.
What they could *not* do is threaten to jack up prices on OEMs that include rival media players, because the OEMs would use one of the OSes that made up the other 70% of the market.
They didn't even get in trouble for just bundling. They got in trouble specifically for *illegally leveraging monopoly power.* This is something you cannot possibly do without a monopoly, so market share DOES matter.
Re:I hope.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is much different to say:
"We are giving you product X with the purchase of product Y, whether you want it or not"
than to say:
"We are giving you product X with the purchase of product Y, and not only can you not remove product Y from your machine (as it is an integral part of the operating system), but we have taken special precautions to make sure that only product Y has access to features of product X that make it particularly useful; and by the way, your system provider signed a contract stating that they would not install product Z on this machine, so you're on your own if you want to install it. And don't complain to us if it is mysteriously disabled every now and then."
Linux distributions don't even compare. Yes, Mozilla is bundled, but if I want to get rid of it and use something else, it's nothing more than a dpkg --purge.
Bundling is not illegal. Product tying is legal too, except that it is a common technique by which a monopoly position is frequently abused, so it is something that frequently comes up in these cases when you are trying a company for abusing a monopoly position.
Re:Free as in "get out of my face" (Score:5, Interesting)
It is a matter that microsoft has a near monopoly. As such it comes other restriction. The main one(at least in the US and similar in the EU) is that you cannot use your monopoly in one area to get a monopoly in another.
Re:Free as in "get out of my face" (Score:5, Informative)
Nonsense. I may be able to buy some sort of PC without Windows on it, but suppose, like most businesses, I have standardised on one supplier (like Dell). I go to their website. I pick my PC. Where is the Linux Desktop option? As for alternative media content. Downloading alternative players and installing them takes time and effort. This may not be much for an individual but for a company with 10,000 seats its time and money.
Until I can go to most major PC suppliers and get the option of alternative OSes and features pre-installed and configured for hardware there is no true competition.
Re:Free as in "get out of my face" (Score:3, Insightful)
How about freedom from large megacorps shoving crap down our throats because they have a monopoly and are rich? How about freedom to use the internet without a monopolist breaking every known standard just to spoil it for everyone who doesn't feed them money? A government has to intervene when the laws of the country are being broken. Surely you support government intervention in the cas
Re:Free as in "get out of my face" (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't choose MS because they like it but because they need to. The nuance is what makes it an unfair monopoly.
A free market requires government intervention (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the players in the market are motivated by maximizing profits, they will always try to circumvent the market forces, mostly by obstructing their competitors. For a company that holds a monopoly in one area, one way to do this is to bundle products from other areas. This is b
Re:Free as in "get out of my face" (Score:5, Interesting)
Consistency is a property that is often overrated by geeks. In the real world, logical consistency often leads to such stupidity as monopoly, anarchism, facism, the religion of "free markets", and Libertarianism. There are two reasons for this:
First, logic is a process by which models are built, not a reality. As a modeling methodology, it is very sensitive to the axioms chosen from which to start the process and many "true believers" in logic are very non-selective in their axiom selection. In addition, the models produced by this method, like all models, distort some aspects of reality, and these models need to be probed for limitations and inacuracies and validated against the real situation. Again, those who most often prattle on about "consistency" are often least likely to test their models for the only consistency that really matters - consistency with the real world.
The second problem with consistency is that the real world simply isn't. The real world is an incredibly messy system. Can you predict with logical certainty that a particular lion will attack a wildebeast at a given time? That a human will make a certain stock trade? Human beings have evolved a highly complex, but inconsistent processing unit (called a brain) that copes pretty well with the world as a whole. Compared to this processor's proven longevity, the creation of logic has been a relatively recent innovation and one that is (as of yet) evolutionarily unproven. Given this, it is highly specious to assume that this new (and unnatural) processing mode is superior to the messier and fuzzier processing that has insured our (and other creatures') survival over millions of years. It is also most probably false that a pure use of logic is superior to a synthesis of the Aristotlian model and a more fuzzy one.
In short, cowboy, people ain't machines - stop tryin' to turn folks into them. I know it would make them a heck of lot easier to model of they were and you think that people would be a lot easier to understand if they were mechanistic and that your natural ability to understand mechanisms would give you an upper hand if they were and you'd be a lot more comfortable with that, but all that just means I'm really glad that you're not in charge. I refuse to surrender my humanity to your logic.
Re:Free as in "get out of my face" (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft is not innovating because it doesn't have to. It has an extremely solid framework in place ranging from software interoperability trade secrets to software patents to vendor lock-in contracts, all to ensure that no one will be able to compete with them legally or that the cost of starting up will be so great that no one will bother.
Their entire business foundation is placed upon a government intervention known as copyright, which has also not served the market. If it were 14 years and if software copyrights required registration of the machine-readable source code with the copyright office, we would already be benefiting from the Windows code of NT 3.1 vintage to serve interoperability efforts, even when they are unwilling to provide interoperability details themselves. However, instead, they are allowed to retain a perpetual monopoly on their software legacy, and any interoperability must be attained through reverse engineering. That is not a good formula for competition.
Without competition, innovation is not happening at the rate that it would in a healthy competitive market. You can sit there and argue all day that Microsoft deserves to reap the riches of their monopoly position without government interference, but every day they sit on their haunches deciding whether it's worth bothering to improve their products, progress in the state of software engineering and the leading edge for users is being held back. I don't know what dogma you subscribe to, but economists seem to have a pretty good formula for improving society, and competition is a fundamental basis of it. Where competition does not naturally exist, it is government's job to try to stimulate it as part of a successful economic policy.
It is utterly ridiculous that we have to depend on open source loving hobbyists and small businesses for the little innovation that comes out of the software industry today. Microsoft may be a monopoly, but they are no market leader. They are a disgrace to the computing industry. I hope this decision changes them permanently for the better.
Re:Bashing an American Company (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bashing an American Company (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicalscience/story/
In 2001 the same comission fined Hoffman-La Roche (Swiss) for 462m, and BASF (German) to the extent of 296m, for vitamin price fixing.
You may go back to your freedom fries now.
PS: One can only hope that an appeal will not be granted. It does not have to be, you know.
Re:Abuse of monopolies (Score:4, Insightful)
it is when the company has killed off competition via illegal means.
Re:Abuse of monopolies (Score:4, Insightful)
So you wouldn't mind if my company sold your kids drugs? And there'd be no problem with me selling nuclear weapons to Islamic fundamentalists?
Re:Abuse of monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
Riiiight...
But if you are the only provider of X (a legal monopoly) and you leverage that monopoly to drive out providers of Y and gain a second monopoly, then it becomes the government's place to tell you what you can and can't do.
Twat.
Justin.
Re:Not Good Enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Ultimately, if Microsoft has to allow other server products to interact with its desktops, then other desktops will also be able to interact with it's desktops and when Microsoft makes a server worth using, it'll be based on their desktops, so