Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government The Courts News

DOJ Calls EU Microsoft Decision "Unfortunate" 671

Posted by michael from the i-find-your-lack-of-faith-disturbing dept.
ogma writes "This one is especially ironic after the recent slashdot story on more of Microsoft's underhanded actions coming to light. It seems that the DOJ thinks Europe was too hard on Microsoft in its anti-trust ruling.. According to Assistant Attorney General Hewitt Pate, the fine 'may send the wrong message about antitrust enforcement priorities'..." Open Council writes "The Register points out that the EU has provided Microsoft with a major victory over its Open Source rivals because it will now be allowed to pursue royalty revenue from the APIs it publishes. Jeremy Allison says that the projects such as Samba, which he jointly leads, may face a prohibitive hurdle. The size of the fine is peanuts to MS but will be a bargain if it can lock out Open Source projects from using its API's."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DOJ Calls EU Microsoft Decision "Unfortunate" More

DOJ Calls EU Microsoft Decision "Unfortunate"

Comments Filter:

  • Meanwhile, back in Redmond (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25, 2004 @10:59AM (#8667703)
    Bill Gates revealed his awesome new creation... the Death Star. "It's capable of destroying entire continents, as we'll soon demonstrate." he was quoted as saying.

  • What the EU did was perfect, fuck the DOJ. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:00AM (#8667723)
    It surpasses fines the Commission has imposed on price-fixing cartels and that may send the wrong message about antitrust enforcement priorities, Pate said.

    It seems like it sends a perfectly clear message. DO NOT FUCK UP OR WE WILL HUNT YOU DOWN. The fine wasn't all that steep for what MS can afford. It was another quick bump in the road. What it shows me is that the EU cannot be bought as easily as the US can.

    "Imposing antitrust liability on the basis of product enhancements and imposing 'code removal' remedies may produce unintended consequences," Pate said. "Sound antitrust policy must avoid chilling innovation and competition even by 'dominant' companies. A contrary approach risks protecting competitors, not competition, in ways that may ultimately harm innovation and the consumers that benefit from it."

    I really don't believe that MS purchasing companies and rolling their products it into their OS makes it any better for the consumers. In fact, I find that updates to software by smaller companies comes often and usually w/o large upgrade fees. To upgrade software once it is rolled into the OS requires you to usually pay for another version and may take years. Sure, WMP9 came out but at the cost of a very harsh EULA that had consequences that outweighed its benefits.

    • Re:What the EU did was perfect, fuck the DOJ. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FattMattP ( 86246 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:10AM (#8667851) Homepage
      It seems like it sends a perfectly clear message. DO NOT FUCK UP OR WE WILL HUNT YOU DOWN. The fine wasn't all that steep for what MS can afford. It was another quick bump in the road. What it shows me is that the EU cannot be bought as easily as the US can.
      While I agree with your view, I think we should wait until the check clears before we all jump up and down with joy. Until Microsoft is done with appeals or paying for thier actions anything can happen.
      • well see that's the difference... The DOJ didn't even bother to wait. They just slapped them and let it go at that. Then they had the nerve to complain that the EU was too harsh.

        At least the EU *said* that's what they were going to do. It's obvious that MS will fight the ruling and the article claimed it could be 2009 before that all closes up.
        • Its just different negotiation tactics. Each party is seeing how far the other will go. The EU just played one card that the DoJ felt it didn't.

          EU was in negotiations before this announcement, and thats all it is, an announcement. Don't be fooled into taking it as a statement of fact/law.

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:20AM (#8667949)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:What the EU did was perfect, fuck the DOJ. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mwood ( 25379 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:22AM (#8667972)
      "Imposing antitrust liability on the basis of product enhancements and imposing 'code removal' remedies may produce unintended consequences," Pate said. "Sound antitrust policy must avoid chilling innovation and competition even by 'dominant' companies. A contrary approach risks protecting competitors, not competition, in ways that may ultimately harm innovation and the consumers that benefit from it."

      This is a very interesting quote, as it can be read two ways. I agree that we should avoid chilling innovation and competition even by 'dominant' companies, and Microsoft has been doing an excellent job of chilling innovation and competition by trying to lock everyone else out. It's time to put a stop to that.

    • Re:What the EU did was perfect, f*** the DOJ. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MyHair ( 589485 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:28AM (#8668044) Journal
      What it shows me is that the EU cannot be bought as easily as the US can.

      A slightly more cynical wording: It shows that the EU cannot be bought by a US company as easily as the US DOJ/presidency can.

    • Congrats, EU, you just killed Samba! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SysKoll ( 48967 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:38AM (#8668174)
      You are very optimistic, garcia. All this shows is that the EU wasted an excellent opportunity. They could have requested that MS open up their interfaces. For free. It's not unprecedented: IBM was required (by the US DoJ) to publish their mainframe interfacing architecture in order to allow competitors to provide storage and comm hardware as well as security services.

      Instead of which, the little Commissars of Brussels royally screwed up by allowing MS to levy a fee for their interface specs. Which guarantees that Open Source software won't be able to use them.

      Do you realize what it means?

      Ii means that in one fell swoop, the Commissars kicked OSS competitiors out of MS pathway in the file and print server business. If it has been the result of bribery, I'd say "kudos to the bastards". But here, the incompetent Brussels morons apparently wanted to promote competition in this field. Unfortunately, as good carreer bureaucrats, they completely ignored the technical and market environment and used ideologically tainted views instead of reality as a decision basis. Whatever the intent, here is the result: Samba will be unable to develop new versions to follow MS changes without paying. Which they can't. So Samba will become incompatible and irrelevant. Linux will not be able to interface with future Windows 200x servers. The lock-out will be complete.

      To paraphrase Linus, the destruction of Samba will be "a completely unintentional side effect". Nevertheless, that's what the Brussels Buffoons achieved. Which was to be expected, since after all, they are bureaucrats, not techies.

      Heck, paying $600M for this result is a piffle. MS would gladly have payed ten times that to kill Samba, only people would have cried foul. But I'm sure Balmer is giggling right now: "Hey Bill, look at that, the Linux crowd is cheering 'cuz we have to pay the equivalent of 3 weeks of revenue!" - "Yes, Steve, little do the fools realize that we just completely won."

      Once again, EU snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. And there was much rejoicing (in megacorp orations' board rooms).

      • I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DarkMan ( 32280 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @12:13PM (#8668771) Journal
        Whatever the intent, here is the result: Samba will be unable to develop new versions to follow MS changes without paying.


        That is just plain wrong.

        Samba team managed to remain interoperable through, what, Win 3.11 even, definitly Windows 95, 98, 98SE, ME, and NT 3.5, 2k, and XP series, without any acess to documentation, beyond what was freely available.

        On what basis does making Microsoft make more information available to some other people make it more difficult for the Samba team to continue to do what they do, for future versions of Windows?

        In short, Samba exists without Microsoft assistance. Forcing Microsoft to help a third party doesn't make it more difficult for Samba, at all.

        (As an aside, given that the EU was only looking at Media players, I think that the API's will only be for Media playing interfaces - thus I don't think that, say, the printing subsystem, will bo covered in all this.)

        Oh, and Samba doesn't _use_ any Windows API's. It uses the SMB protocol, and I've not seen anyone claim that Microsoft's protocols will have to be opened - the equivelent here would be the protocols that cover WMP to server negotiations, I think.

        So, unless you want to point me to something I must have missed, I can't agree with you.

        • Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SysKoll ( 48967 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @01:19PM (#8669734)
          I really wish you're right. SMB was undocumented and protected by obscurity.

          But consider this situation now. MS has hired the IBM patent guru, the guy who drove IBM's Intellectual Property licensing from zero to $2 billion a year in a short time. Obviously, MS intends to patent everything they can.

          Enter Longhorn, which already includes a slew of patented techs. Here comes a new patented version of SMB. The specs are available to competitors, as per the EU mandates, and the IP license is available for the reasonable sum of $3000. A mere tip in the IP business. Only, the Samba developer cannot afford it.

          In this situation, I don't see how Samba can be made compatible with Longhorn without infringing IP or patent laws. If you reimplement a patented technology, you are infringing the patent, even if you have never seen it.

          Feel free to reassure me. Please.

          • Re:I don't think so... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by jdgeorge ( 18767 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @04:15PM (#8672268)
            But consider this situation now. MS has hired the IBM patent guru, the guy who drove IBM's Intellectual Property licensing from zero to $2 billion a year in a short time. Obviously, MS intends to patent everything they can.

            In 2003, largely in the absence of Marshall Phelps, IBM was granted 3,415 patents [newsfactor.com]. The others of the top 10 patent leaders were: Canon, Hitachi, Matsushita, HP, Micron, Intel, Philips, Samsung, and Sony.

            IBM's piece of that was 18.8% of the patents granted to all of these companies in 2003. They do indeed patent "everything they can", and are very agressive about encouraging patent applications from all employees. Their commitment to developing their IP portfolio will not diminish in the absence of Marshall Phelps.

            In short, Microsoft has a LONG way to go before it becomes as dominant in patents as it is in software.

            In this situation, I don't see how Samba can be made compatible with Longhorn without infringing IP or patent laws. If you reimplement a patented technology, you are infringing the patent, even if you have never seen it.

            Longhorn is currently vaporware. It is not yet a problem. Interaction with it is currently a non-issue. In the longer term, Samba may become unable to interact with new versions of Windows. Big deal. Companies will be aware that if they buy software from Microsoft that can't interoperate, they are locking themselves in to a single vendor.

            Feel free to reassure me. Please.

            Microsoft's fight to retain it's current level of dominance has become an uphill battle. GNU/Linux and BSD now present a level of functionality and reliability that Microsoft simply can not match at the current price of its software products.

            For example, the base distribution of Debian GNU/Linux, available for the price of the media, provides functionality that would cost literally thousands of dollars on Microsoft's current operating systems.

            Really, this is probably the most painful (to Microsoft) part of the EU punishment. The issue is largely related to bundling and exclusive arrangements. BSD or GNU/Linux distributions can and do bundle quantities of high-quality free software. This makes Microsoft cringe, because not only are they are being punished for bundling their own software, but because they cannot legally bundle much of the same free software due to licensing restrictions.

        • Patents? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by emil ( 695 )

          I believe that the Samba team is concerned with patent enforcement.

          I remember an article in the past regarding some type of password hashing technique where Microsoft discretely reminded a Samba developer that the Samba code was treading on a Microsoft patent.

          The EU action gets the patent engine rolling.

      • hmm. If the samba people don't get access to the technical documents, then they'll just do exactly what they've been doing all along - reverse engineer.
        How is this going to affect samba team in a negative way?

  • It's the DOJs fault (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jahf ( 21968 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:01AM (#8667729) Journal
    Had the DOJ followed through on it's case properly earlier, I don't think that the EU ruling would have been so harsh. The EU felt they had to send a message that someone was going to stand up.

    Hell, if the DOJ had pursued real resolution there might not have been a case in the EU as Media Player might have been unbundled then.

    Media Player is not the biggest anti-competitive piece they have anyway.

    • Re:It's the DOJs fault (Score:5, Insightful)

      by deman1985 ( 684265 ) <dedwards&kappastone,com> on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:11AM (#8667856) Homepage
      I agree. Although some of the points that the DOJ was making in their case against Microsoft seemed irrelevent, I was one of many people I knew who were looking forward to some kind of real penalty. Then, out of the blue, it was as if the case just disappeared and we never heard about it again.

      They were talking about breaking up the company into different divisions or separating products or imposing massive fines, and yet did any of these things really happen? It seems like the DOJ really failed in that regard, and I'm glad that somebody stood up and sent a wake up call to MS.

    • Re:It's the DOJs fault (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:16AM (#8667919)
      Bullshit -- The DOJ's resolution was a lot more "real" than the EU's. It was nothing dramatic or user-visible like a Breakup or removing Media Player, but it cut right to the heart of Microsoft's monopoly power -- their relationship with OEMs.

      For those that don't know, MS is now forbidden from playing price games with Windows. They absolutely can not threaten or cajole OEMs to do their evil bidding. And guess what -- OEMs are now shipping bare PCs and Linux PCs and RealPlayer and Sun Java and so on -- where there were scared to before. It's working

      The EU doesn't do jack shit to reign in MS -- it only costs them some money. Having a Windows with out Media Player is a retarded remedy -- 99% of OEMs will continue to ship the full version of Windows.

      • Re:It's the DOJs fault (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jahf ( 21968 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @12:05PM (#8668639) Journal
        One was a key methodology change that affected Microsoft's channel business. The other was a public slap in the face that gives Big Business a wake-up call about MS's practices.

        Both were required to get the job done. The DOJ did one but not the other, the EU did the other in response.

        OEMs were only -part- of Microsoft's stranglehold. I was in Australia last year and Ireland this year to talk about competitive products to Microsoft (overseas Microsoft is just as reliant on direct sales as it is OEMs, OEMs are often much more regional outside of the states) and it was quite clear that people feel that the US government is in bed with MS because everything seemed to have gone away so quietly and MS is still exercising monopolistic attitudes with many groups because of it.

        Even though $613,000,000 may be only a couple of percent of what MS can afford, it is a public statement of injury and will have at least as much of an affect in the longterm as the OEM issue did.

      • Re:It's the DOJs fault (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @12:39PM (#8669166)

        MS is now forbidden from playing price games with Windows. They absolutely can not threaten or cajole OEMs to do their evil bidding.

        Weren't they forbidden from doing that back in 1993? I must be getting old, because I could swear that this had already happened once before.

    • Re:It's the DOJs fault (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GPLDAN ( 732269 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @12:01PM (#8668569)
      The DOJ should STFU. WTF are they doing commenting on a ruling by the European Union? Does the US care what France has to say about the Martha Stewart trial?

      US companies are censored and fined all the time that do business in the EU. Read the Economist and you see all kinds of articles, one was about Coca-Cola and some fine on distribution. The DOJ didn't say anything about that.

      As another poster pointed out, if the DOJ had prosecuted their case CORRECTLY, and broken Microsoft up along O/S and application lines, none of this would be an issue. Microsoft will continue to blur the line between stuff that the O/S loads at startup via linked libs and shared objects, as long as they can get away with it. Pretty soon, we'll find out that Longhorn REQUIRES Media PLayer Player 9 to be installed AND be linked to all the major media types like .mpg and .avi, or the new "video help system" won't work.

  • The Wrong Message (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) * <jhummel&johnhummel,net> on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:01AM (#8667734) Homepage
    Ah, yes, sending the wrong message about antitrust enforcement policies. Like, when someone is found guilty of anticompetitive behavior while a monopoly - actually enforcing a penalty so they don't do it again?

    Sorry - my bad, what was I thinking of.

    I am somewhat concerned with the EU's choice to allow MS to "license" the API's. From my perspective, those API's should be fully published with no license behind them. MS should not have to reveal the code behind how they work, but the API's should be publicly available, and any updates and changes to those API's (say, though a patch or service pack) should be immediatly updated.

    Just my $0.02. As always, it's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.

    • Re:The Wrong Message (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tassach ( 137772 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:06AM (#8667798)
      Microsoft licensing the APIs is irrelvant to Samba -- all the samba work is based on specifications which were either released publicly or which were independently reverse-engineered.

      As long as Samba continues to base itself on untainted specifications, Microsoft can't do jack.

      • Re:The Wrong Message (Score:4, Insightful)

        by JimDabell ( 42870 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:32AM (#8668104) Homepage

        Microsoft licensing the APIs is irrelvant to Samba -- all the samba work is based on specifications which were either released publicly or which were independently reverse-engineered.

        Says who? The Samba developers? If Samba gets a few new features in the next few years, what's to stop Microsoft accusing them from looking at the stuff that needs royalties, or looking at the leaked source code?

        Remember - Microsoft don't have to win in court to win overall - they just have to have enough of a case to tie the Samba guys up for years or bankrupt them with legal fees.

      • Re:The Wrong Message (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ameoba ( 173803 )
        Samba has fsck all to do with MSFT APIs. An API [ic.ac.uk] is the definition of how a program interfaces with the OS or libraries. Samba implements a protocol [ic.ac.uk], a standard for information exchange between systems.

        This is why what MSFT does to its APIs doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with reverse engineering, it's just that they're two completely different things.

    • Re:The Wrong Message (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 )
      ``I am somewhat concerned with the EU's choice to allow MS to "license" the API's.''

      Nothing wrong with that. They are MS's APIs, MS has every right to do anything they wish with them. If they decide to charge for specifications, it becomes that much harder for individuals and small companies to code to them, which gives open systems a competitive advantage. It's up to MicroSoft to make the best decission about it.

  • Too hard? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Omni Magnus ( 645067 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:01AM (#8667738)
    I don't think fining a business with 40 billion in the bank 500 million is harsh. I think the DoJ wanted them to get a slap on the wrist like always.

    • Re:Too hard? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by southpolesammy ( 150094 )
      This may seem like a dumb question...but what would happen if Microsoft just "didn't pay" the fine? That is, they ignore the EU's decision altogether.

      Then what happens?

      • Re:Too hard? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by lpp ( 115405 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:22AM (#8667980) Homepage Journal
        I imagine any corporate assets within reach of the executive powers of the EU (i.e. whatever body is in place to enforce such rulings as the EU just made) could be seized in order to compensate for the fine.

        Likewise, any officers of the company's European branches could possibly be prosecuted for failing to comply with the order of this body.

        As a final parting shot, if that didn't satisfy them, I suppose it is also possible that Microsoft would no longer be able to do business in the EU, but that would be a more diplomatic/political issue and given the federated nature of the EU, much less likely to succeed I would think as some nations might not want to anger Microsoft (or the US, for that matter) by locking them out.

        But IANAL, corporate, international or otherwise, so what do I know?

  • Register overreacting a bit (Score:5, Informative)

    by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:02AM (#8667746) Journal
    The decision states that "to the extent that any of this interface information might be protected by intellectual property in the European Economic Area, Microsoft would be entitled to reasonable remuneration".

    Interfaces and formats aren't protected, which is why WINE and Samba can and have been using them for years. I remember Microsoft getting in a tiff over WINE using the same header files, but backed down.

    This doesn't seem to grant anything to Microsoft that they didn't already have. No biggie.

    • Re:Register overreacting a bit (Score:5, Insightful)

      by janoc ( 699997 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:13AM (#8667886)
      In fact, it does - what if MS files patents on the CIFS APIs ? Samba has no means how to license those, and even though, theoretically, the API is "open", it is not, in fact. And Microsoft is filling patents one after another these days. This is exactly what Register tries to point out and you have missed. Regards, Jan

      • Re:Register overreacting a bit (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Talthane ( 699885 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:37AM (#8668164)

        That'd be a neat trick, since software isn't patentable in the EU (not yet anyway). And Microsoft has been able to file patents in the US for years on CIFS, so this case makes not one iota of difference to the situation either way - same as it's always been.

        Also, IBM, Sun and Apple would likely all cry foul simultaneously, and they have much more clout than Samba itself in such matters.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Register overreacting a bit (Score:5, Informative)

        by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:50AM (#8668371) Journal
        Okay, of the types of IP there are (at least in the US -- I don't know European law, unfortunately):

        * Patent law. This is probably Microsoft's best bet, but it's terribly thin. You patent a process, a way of doing something. Even software/algorithm patents get a lot of criticism, though they're still a process. An API is static. There are not changes involved, nothing to patent.

        * Trademark law. Well, Microsoft *might* requre people not to call their "DirectX" implementation "DirectX", but they can't go any further than that.

        * Copyright. You may be able to copyright the specific representation of the API that you put out -- but you can't copyright a list of facts (like what values need to be passed to what functions) -- just the presentation. If someone types up their own API docs/headers, they're in the clear.

        * Trade Secret. Won't work. Microsoft already tried doing exactly this with the Kerberos-in-CIFS attempt earlier -- trade secrets need to be *secrets*. They can't be published and handed out and still recieve trade secret status. If the EU forces Microsoft to publish their APIs, Microsoft automatically loses all trade secret protection on those APIs that they might potentially have had. (There are other reasons this might not work, like reverse engineering IP exemptions, but I believe that this is enough to blow away their protection already).

  • Even when MS looses it wins! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by iplayfast ( 166447 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:03AM (#8667748)
    It doesn't seem right to me that a royalty could be charged for using api's. The api's are there and can be used by any software. Isn't that the purpose of an OS? That is, to provide an interface layer between the programs and the hardware? The royalty is payed for by the consumer when they buy the OS.

  • The wrong message? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by carcosa30 ( 235579 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:03AM (#8667757)
    Yeah, it may send the "wrong" message about trust enforcement priorities.

    Their job is to enforce antitrust legislation. To the extent that they have not enforced it upon Microsoft (and numerous other conglomerates) they are not doing their job and are guilty of dereliction of duty.

    Are they worried this "wrong message" might get people thinking about what should be done to aggressive monopolies, and get people talking about the fact that pork and kickbacks are now driving policy in the US under the current administration?

    A fine that large ain't hay, even for the $loth.

    • Re:The wrong message? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Doesn't_Comment_Code ( 692510 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:19AM (#8667941)
      pork and kickbacks are now driving policy in the US under the current administration

      This has been a problem for quite some time, with administrations and legislators alike - any elected official really. Even if you don't like Bush, you can't saddle all this on him. This is a large problem, and has been for a while.

      The worst part of it is it's self-supportive nature. Those who oppose this unscrupulous model have a much harder time being elected because they don't get money. That's the problem. But it is very difficult to fix due to freedoms guaranteed in the constitution.

  • Remember folks, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mumblestheclown ( 569987 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:04AM (#8667779)
    this is the same protectionist EU which is absolutely drunk in love with GI (geographic indicators). this link is a bit over the top, but not too far: http://www.kc3.co.uk/~dt/protectionism.htm also: http://www.lymec.org/article.php?sid=117 Anybody who claims that the EU as a whole does not play machiavellian economic power politics with rulings and regulations is a fool. the EU's economic policies are the equivalent of the stereotype of the US's current military ones.. unilateral, self-serving, and ultimately deadly to innocents.

    • Re:Remember folks, (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:31AM (#8668092)
      this is the same protectionist EU which is absolutely drunk in love with GI (geographic indicators).

      Geographic Indicators are a good idea. If the packet says parmesan cheese, that's what I want, not some inferior cheese that has chosen to exploit the popularity of parmesan. The crazy thing is that in the USA, a company can Trademark a name like "parmesan", even when parmesan has meant something very specific in the rest of the world for hundreds of years.

      I think the reason the US doesn't like GI is because it doesn't have so many food products that are linked to a region like Europe does. But really, if the USA expects everyone to respect their trademarks, they should respect our product labels too. Come up with your own names for stuff, don't rip off names that have been respected in Europe for generations.

  • Remember: That's Department of "Justice" (Score:3, Funny)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06.email@com> on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:06AM (#8667796)
    "It's deeply unfortunate that the EU is ignoring our lead of playfully mock-slapping Microsoft on the wrist to try to placate the unwashed masses and have instead chosen to not only fine them a whole days worth of dessert money but more importantly, create a legal precedent that could be invoked for fines that might actually hurt. It is my responsibility to announce that the ministers and employees of the EU are now considered to be enemy combatants. Special Forces Units are en route to collect and process them at sunny Guantanamo Bay."

  • hahah.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pb ( 1020 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:07AM (#8667804)
    Thanks to Ashcroft, the DoJ has lost all their credibility with me. If they say it's bad, well, it must be WONDERFUL.

    I'd love to hear their positions on this, and a variety of other issues; can we get a DoJ interview?

    Should we have broken up Ma Bell? Standard Oil? American Tobacco?

    What's your position on mandatory prayer in school... how about illegal search and seizure--an idea that was ahead of its time?

  • Senator Patty Murray is deeply troubled (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:09AM (#8667833)
    Patty Murray's statement can be found at Murray Statement on EU Ruling Against Microsoft [senate.gov]. Here are her contact information: http://murray.senate.gov/contact/
  • Fining Microsoft sounds fine but it's the wrong tool for several reasons. First, it will force Microsoft to raise prices in other ways, so the fine is a hidden tax on consumers. Second, it does not change the underlying problem, which is that Microsoft have been allowed over the last decade to establish a position from which they can control prices in a market almost devoid of real competition. Third, the timing is poor, since the EU and US are on the edge of a trade war, and the US will certainly use this as an excuse to raise barriers on EU businesses. Lastly, Microsoft will appeal and this will take years, during which there will be much argument and hostility, with no positive changes to show for it.

    I don't believe for a second that Microsoft will take this fine as a warning that merits a change in behaviour. They will simply spin it into an advantage, one way or another.

    What needs to be done is establish and enforce international free-competition standards via the WTO. Then, if a US company is found to be breaking these, the problem can be addressed to the right place, namely the US government.

    The EU could achieve much more in the arena of competition by correcting the injustices of the patent system (which turns it into a tool for market control by large businesses), and by mandating the use of OSS licenses in all software that is developed for the EU bodies themselves.

  • unfortunate mixup of interests... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sofar ( 317980 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:10AM (#8667852) Homepage

    This just gets to me... US judicial bodies, not a political party, a president, or something *commenting* on .eu trade regulations, which are much more open than .us ones. If they want to scare the .eu they are obviously stupid, but this just smells like Bush pushing his puppets to make clear that he and his troops will put .US companies first above everything, and they intend to smear other countries in favor of their home voters.

    Vote democrat, 5.85 billion people in the world would do so if they could!!!

  • Follow the money (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:11AM (#8667868)
    Hardly surprising, giving R. Hewitt Pate was one of the men who imposed MS's wristslap by the DoJ. I wonder if there might be a conflict of interest [opensecrets.org] here.

    Note : Allowing your senior DoJ / government lawyers *cough, Ashcroft* to be in hock to major corporations might not be a very wise idea.

  • Gray Matter (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Prince Vegeta SSJ4 ( 718736 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:17AM (#8667921)

    "Imposing antitrust liability on the basis of product enhancements and imposing 'code removal' remedies may produce unintended consequences," Pate said. "Sound antitrust policy must avoid chilling innovation and competition even by 'dominant' companies. A contrary approach risks protecting competitors, not competition, in ways that may ultimately harm innovation and the consumers that benefit from it."

    IMO , this is a very sticky subject. For instance - what if a TV manufacturer couldn't sell remotes? What if MacDonalds Couldn't sell french fries or sodas? I know that's a little silly but it is still similar.

    On one hand M$ should be able to 'innovate' and add new features users want, on the other, they ARE a convicted monopoly and should not be allowed to use that position illegaly (unless of course I bought the stock at the right time). Microsoft, however, has become a victim of their own tactics.

    By that I mean, that Microsoft as essentially muscled windows into what many consider is a 'staple' product (/. users excepted of course), now they may have to live with the fact that they may not forcibly bundle certain 'features' within the OS. An OS may go the route of a commodity (and in this day and age probably should, although I would probably be against any law that forces commodity pricing for windows), making MS compete in the open market, and on the basis of quality for all of Windows 'Features'.

    Nevertheless, maybe we should have a definition of what an OS is, and what must be sold seperately.

  • Corruption of the US goverment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shuz ( 706678 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:17AM (#8667929) Homepage Journal
    It is sad to see that excellent decisions in other countries highlight the corruption of my US goverment. As a minnesotan, I say put Ventura in as president and we can eliminate corruption once and for all.

    • The eu is corrupt too. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by steve_l ( 109732 )
      Look at the effective encouragement for diesel cars -protects the french car industry against the japanese.

      Look at the Common Agricultural Policy, that preserves rural peasant life at the expense of the rest of the world.

      The EU is pretty blatantly self-serving at times. But it has embraced the Kyoto agreement, and it is not afraid of slapping around companies that overstep the mark. And it monitors those decisions pretty well.

      Maybe it is because there is no president; to buy the EU you have to subvert a

  • From Groklaw : Bush to "Engage" the EU (Score:5, Interesting)

    by anandpur ( 303114 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:19AM (#8667948)
    From Groklaw :
    Washington State's Senator Murray Asks Bush to "Engage" the EU

    "'This ruling is yet another example of the EU assaulting a successful American industry and policies that support our economic growth,' said U.S. Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Microsoft's home state, Washington. . . .
    "Murray called on the Bush administration to 'engage' the EU in settling the case. 'The EU has now directly attacked the authority of the United States and our economy in general,' she said in a statement. 'American jobs and economic interests are threatened,' she said."

    Um. "Engage"? She doesn't mean sending in troops or anything, does she?

    Joke.

    Wait a sec. Who assaulted who? Isn't the issue whether Microsoft broke the law over there? If they did, does she suggest it shouldn't matter, because they simultaneously give Americans jobs? The article points out that corporations that do sufficient business in Europe are subject to their laws, something they could avoid by not doing business there. They could also avoid consequences by not breaking any laws. I believe that would entail reading them

  • Force compliance, don't impose a fine (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ahodgkinson ( 662233 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:21AM (#8667965) Homepage Journal
    • "It would have been better to levy no fine, but to force Microsoft to provide these interfaces into the public domain. This would allow the possibility of real competition. Allowing Microsoft to remain in control in any form over the interface disclosure leaves the competitive landscape unchanged."

    Why not an injunction instead of a fine? Removing less than a billion dollars from Microsoft's $50 billion in cash isn't going cause Microsoft to do anything differently. At most it will be a embarrassing publicity problem.

    The EU's goal is to provide a competitive environment where other companies will have chance. This can only be done my making Microsoft compete fairly, which means forcing a change in their corporate behavior. This won't happen by confiscating 2% of their yearly revenues.

    Microsoft has shown multiples time that it is unwilling to do business on a level playing field. So instead of a fine, how about immediately imposing an injunction on Microsoft making it illegal to sell their products in Europe until they comply with the EU's terms. I think this is the only way to get them to change their corporate behavior.

  • Damned if you do... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by morgajel ( 568462 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:22AM (#8667971)
    Damned if you don't.

    I honestly can't see any way to win at this point, and it sucks. There is no way microsoft can be punished. even levelling record setting fines, microsoft still makes out good. This was supposed to be a punishment, not giving them any sort of leverage.

    aw hell, I just don't care any,ore.

  • It is unfortunate (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:22AM (#8667975) Homepage
    It is unfortunate... unfortunate that the DOJ didn't do thier jobs properly the first FOUR times, allowing this company to continue to behave in an anticompetitive and illegal manner with nothing more than a wink and a nudge.

    Why can't I get away with abusive and immoral practices for 25 years, leading to nothing but becoming the richest man, and company, in the world? Am I not rich enough? Is my industry not new enough to be beyond the law?

    While limited one of many particular aspects of Microsoft's behavior, I applaud the EU's ruling. If anything it was too limited in scope... hopefully other cases will follow. Let's see, there is DrDos, BeOS, Word compatibility, IE, per-cpu licensing, OS only licensing, No naked licensing...

  • What has this got to do with the DoJ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by csteinle ( 68146 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:27AM (#8668027) Homepage
    My understanding of US government is somewhat lacking, but what does this have to do with the DoJ? MS broke EU rules, and the EU has made a decision based on that (right or wrong). It probably does have something to do with whatever department(s) handle foreign trade and relations, but what way is that the business of the DoJ?
    • The DoJ brings antitrust cases on behalf of the federal government. They tend to have an opinion on which companies are violating antitrust laws and which ones aren't.

      (You're right that in theory, the State Department (foreign ministry) should be the one engaging in diplomacy, but there are so many facets of foreign relations that other departments like to handle their own little parts of the pie--assuming the subject is not too sensitive. Trade is generally under the aegis of the Commerce Department, but

  • The Administration (Score:4, Interesting)

    by InodoroPereyra ( 514794 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:28AM (#8668040)
    How much can a change in the political administration of a country influence its Justice ? In theory very little. The independence of these powers is essential to a democracy. In practice, the US DoJ changed from prosecuting a monopolist corporation (with B. Clinton) to: first letting go, and now publically defend, the same monopolist (with the current administration, which shall go unnamed ;-). Quite a change, quite a change ...

  • Wrong message??? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nizo ( 81281 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:28AM (#8668042) Homepage Journal
    According to Assistant Attorney General Hewitt Pate, the fine 'may send the wrong message about antitrust enforcement priorities'.
    You mean something like the EU pursues antitrust violators while the US doesn't?

  • It is NOT a fine. It is a TAX. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:29AM (#8668051) Homepage Journal
    First off, it is not a fine. No government ever accesses a FINE. They only tax. They just call it by different names.

    Second, the remedies are good in regards to making them separate out the audio/video players. Though in context MS should have been congratulated if it impeded someone from getting REAL.

    Back to the main point. Fines are taxes. Every consumer will being paying this "fine" for Microsoft. I don't care if you use Linux, Mac, or nothing at all. Your paying. Think of it as an embedded tax. It looks good in the press as an "evil corporation" is getting punished but tell me what corporation pays any tax? They don't, hence they don't pay fines either. You pay. Corporations make money, anything that reduces that profit is still paid for by the people bought the product or did business with someone who did.

    The EU was on the right track but they may have given MS some advantages that it would have never had otherwise.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:37AM (#8668165)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • HEADLINE: (Score:3, Funny)

    by pergamon ( 4359 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:40AM (#8668200) Homepage
    "Slashdot calls DOJ Microsoft Decision Unfortunate"

  • This fine is completely bogus anyway (Score:3, Insightful)

    by melted ( 227442 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:41AM (#8668225) Homepage
    I'll rub the slashdot crowd the wrong way, but I EXPECT my OS to have rich multimedia abilities these days, and I wouldn't like to have Real on it just because Real decides they can force themselves upon me. Who do you think is stirring the shit? That's right, Real. I don't see why any of the European countries would oppose the decision. $100M is a nice chunk of cash, nobody will decline to participate. Next time they decide they need cash they'll say that DirectX shouldn't be there. In 10 years they'll only allow MS to ship bare kernel.

    In my opinion what MS offered them was reasonable - they offered to include competing media players alongside with WMP. For some reason that wasn't enough, and EC decided to screw the innocent consumer by robbing him of convenience of having the best media player on the planet come for free with his Windows purchase, and go through the chores of installing it from the internet.

    If things go well for Real, EC may decide to not only prohibit the distribution of WMP but also force MS to include that POS Real software. It's like forcing Coca Cola to sell _only_ Pepsi products from their vending machines.

  • OSS should turn the tables (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrIrwin ( 761231 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:45AM (#8668270) Journal
    What a network server does is essentially simple and may be realised with well established non IP'able techniques.

    Unfortunately Linux, and *nix in general, appears to have placed importance on an SMB network, the only alternatives such as NFS are still orientated around networking computers rather than users.

    OSS should present and push a simple and credible alternative standard for user orientated networking, get it standardised, and evangelize to the user community the advantages of not having a networked locked into proprietry standards (as if those compelled to upgrade thier NT servers are not allready aware!). MS should be forced to comply by user demand.

    BTW, interesting that one of the few viable alternatives to SMB (as far as integrating on windows is concerned) is Novells stuff, I wonder what thier approach to the problem will be?

  • Hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by plopez ( 54068 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:47AM (#8668321) Journal
    MS is also engaging in blatant hypocrisy. On one hand, they argued that since they had already had an anti-trust case in the US which they lost that the EU had no reason or right to extend the penalties beyond what was already done. They were already and ONLY bound by the US decision. On the other hand, after losing (or suffering a setback in) the Lindows case in the US (IIRC) they are now jurisdiction shopping across the globe because the US courts did not rule in their favor. Go figure...

  • EU "Win"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Erwos ( 553607 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:51AM (#8668397)
    So let me get this straight:
    1. Microsoft has to pay pocket cash to pay the fine.
    2. Microsoft can't bundle Windows Media Player.
    3. Microsoft can now lock out all open-source projects trying to attain API compatibility. Good-bye WINE, Samba, et al.

    Forgive me, but any EU decision which ends up doing significant damage to the free software movement and does minimal damage to Microsoft can't really be considered a "win" for the consumer.

    That's not to mention that, compared to the DoJ ruling, this does NOTHING to reign in their monopolist tendencies. If the DoJ was a slap on the wrist, this was a loving pat on the rump. At least the DoJ got Microsoft to stop abusing OEMs who tried to give choice - all the EU ruling did was protect Real and get some money from a US corporation. If this was a big win for the EU, I can only imagine what a big defeat would be.

    -Erwos

  • Clinton DOJ antitrust head likes EU deal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tehanu ( 682528 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @11:53AM (#8668439)
    In "The Age" article at http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/25/10799 39782633.html

    the former head of antitrust in the DOJ under Clinton disagrees with the current head of antitrust.

    "But Douglas Melamed, chief of the DoJ's antitrust division in the Clinton administration, said the EU's order made perfect sense.

    "The commission did nothing that strikes me as outrageous or foolish," he said. The fine was appropriate; a good deterrent that "enables you to focus yourself on deterring wrongful conduct rather than trying to regulate it after you find it.""

    The opposing reactions of the two heads of antitrust lends strong credence to the theory that Bush's election did lead to a dramatic change in the DOJ antitrust operations and was the reason why stronger action against MS was dropped.

    Also, Senate Republican leader Bill Frist has hinted at sanctions and a trade war with the EU over Microsoft. According to the article in "The Age" he is quoted as saying:

    "I fear that the US and the EU are heading towards a new trade war and that the commission's ruling against Microsoft is the first shot." and

    "If the US Government does not make a clear and strong objection to the EU actions, we will lose influence and credibility for years to come, to the detriment of the US economy and US consumers,"

    So I guess now support for MS has become intertwined with patriotism and national pride. Yay. I guess for all your Americans out there, remember, according to your beloved Republican Senate leader, the reputation of the US as a nation is now intertwined with that of MS...

  • Thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @12:01PM (#8668561) Homepage Journal
    ``The European Commission's order for Microsoft Corp. to ship a version of Windows without the Windows Media Player could stifle innovation and help Microsoft's rivals instead of promoting fair competition, the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust chief said Wednesday.''

    Well, yes and no. Disallowing MicroSoft from bundling their apps with the OS gives competing OS and application vendors a competitive advantage. However, this _promotes_ rather than stifles competition, because, as it stands, MicroSoft pulls all the strings. I agree that assymetric measures like this should be avoided, but the system is out of balance and won't function properly until we rebalance it somehow.

    I see it as a punishment; in principle, you are allowed to bundle anything with anything you please, but if you use bundling as a weapon to push competitors out of the market, the court can forbid it.

    Earlier, I objected that bundling is a service to the consumer and should therefore not be limited, but I realize there is a solution: if MicroSoft can't bundle, a third party still can. They could then select the things to bundle from every product on the market, and given enough bundlers, every software gets a fair chance; at least, theoretically.

  • Great Positioning (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @12:13PM (#8668774) Homepage Journal

    Even though MS, sitting on US$6e10 cash can easily afford the penalty, I'd say to the EU:

    1. Drop the fine entirely.
    2. Prohibit bundling of new features on top of the basic OS unless all competitors including MS have an equal opportunity to that desktop.
    3. Open the API's to complete, free access to make a level playing field for all comers to innovate on top of Windows, not just Microsoft and not just those willing to sign NDA's or pay a toll charge.

    [I'm a US citizen and I don't think the EU decision is at all out of line. The US DOJ action does not seemed to have increased Microsoft's competition on the Windows desktop or innovation in general by one iota. But we're still getting charged.]

  • To pay for royalties... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ClubStew ( 113954 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @12:19PM (#8668867) Homepage

    Here's a thought: try selling software and those royalties wouldn't be so bad.

  • Modded as a flame again, I'm sure (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nightsweat ( 604367 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @12:34PM (#8669084)
    I've said it before. It's been modded as flamebait before. I'll say it again and it's not a flame.

    Anti-trust is DEAD under this administration. It wasn't kicking so strong under Clinton either, but it was alive. Remember the MS suit that was tossed out as soon as the Bush team took office?

  • Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tarwn ( 458323 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @01:05PM (#8669528) Homepage
    EU judgement:
    Ok, so the DoJ doesn't like the way things went down. Neither do I, perhaps for differant reasons.

    I think that in fining MS and then telling them to release the API's, with the ability to charge for said access to the API's, the EU did nothing. Thats right, they made a lot of noise, but in the end they did nothing. Unless you consider forcing MS to open a new market and give some of the profit to the EU courts as something to be proud of.

    Consider: EU court system charges MS a fine. Why does the EU government get this money? Was MS competing with the EU government? Does anybody believe the majority of this money will end up in the hands of the companies MS was charged with pushing out of the market? So free check for the EU courts. Next the EU courts tell MS that they have to allow others to use their API's, but MS is allowed to charge a royalty. In other words, thanks for the cash, here's a slap on the wrist and a way to make the money back.

    So in the end, the companies that MS has forced out of business are still out of business, the API's they wouldn't release before are now released, but still unavailable to those that cannot afford them, and...?

    Maybe next time they will consider not bribing themselves and actually making a decision that will actually help the situation, rather than simply making it look as if they had.

    Taking money away from MS won't do a thing towards getting them to compete equally. Opening closed standards and imposing financial monitoring would only be a start to forcing free competition, but it would go a lot further than forcing MS to sell access to (some of) the API's.

    In the end I think the EU courts basically took a bribe to look the other way. Except where they had the power to really do somehting ere, they were actually the ones that offered and received the bribe, they just made sure the money was coming out of someone elses pocket.

    Amount of Fine:As to the arguments about the amount of the fine, it doesn't matter to MS as long as the amount doesn't affect operating costs. The money will be made back simply by not offering as many special deals on software. MS doesn't even have to raise the retail prices, just the wholesale ones (ie, the real price we pay everywhere but Amazon and BestBuy who carge retail and tell us we're getting a deal).

    OSS:
    No effect. Samba (as an example) hasn't needed the API's this long, and as far as I know they really don't need the Media Player API's. Just a guess.

  • Our leaders in the USA are a tad defensive... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anthony Boyd ( 242971 ) on Thursday March 25, 2004 @01:21PM (#8669755) Homepage
    According to Assistant Attorney General Hewitt Pate, the fine 'may send the wrong message about antitrust enforcement priorities'

    Translation: "Shit, you guys are making us look bad. Stop it!"

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close