Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


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

Microsoft's EU Appeal is Ready 150

Posted by Hemos from the the-battle-smolders-on dept.
psic writes "According to techworld, Microsoft plans on lodging its official appeal to the European Commission concerning the EC's decision to fine the software giant 497.2 million euros, as well as forcing them to open up part of the code of Windows, "so other products could interoperate with it better". It's taken Microsoft a couple of months, but their appeal is ready. One interesting thing is the fact that an appeal will take at least three years to conclude. But the decision of the EC might just come into effect very soon, regardless of Microsoft's appeal."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft's EU Appeal is Ready More

Microsoft's EU Appeal is Ready

Comments Filter:

  • Wait a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mz6 ( 741941 ) * on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:00AM (#9355929) Journal
    OK... I read the article but I don't understand this part. If they were found guilty of abusing their monopoly, why are they required to make a enw version of Windows with it's media player built in? Doesn't it already have it built in? Anyone care to explain?

    • Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Informative)

      by NickeB ( 763713 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:01AM (#9355942)
      Uh... they were required to make a "new" version of Windows without the media player built in?

      • Re:Wait a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mz6 ( 741941 ) * on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:03AM (#9355951) Journal
        If that's the case, this article has a farily severe misspelling.

      • they were required to make a "new" version of Windows without the media player

        That and a few other monopoly-related restrictions that Microsoft has implemented

        As far as I can tell the whole appeal process is Microsoft's way of defending their Palladium (aka "secure computing") system from "competitors". If they are forced to support software that doesn't run as Microsoft bids then they can deny it from installing. Sure the technology will take several years before it actually comes out, but MS would

        • Of course, if Europe says Microsoft has to open their code, and they knock down the appeal, Microsoft has two choices.

          1) Open up their code, which would bring in a new era of windows programming as vendors can make more tightly integrated applications, spyware makers can make more tightly integrated spyware, and the windows monopoly would probably continue otherwise unfettered. Although Linux would also interoperate better with Windows apps.

          2) Microsoft can stop trading Windows in Europe. That's a lot o
    • They are required to make a version without media player built in.. probably a typo somewhere.

    • Re:Wait a minute... (Score:4, Informative)

      by lachlan76 ( 770870 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:06AM (#9355977)
      Microsoft was required to unbundle Media Player, so that other third-party players would have a chance at getting in on the average user market.
      At worst this will launch a DDoS attack against Microsoft's web servers, at best everyone will be using Winamp, or OSS equivalent.

      • Microsoft was required to unbundle Media Player, so that other third-party players would have a chance at getting in on the average user market.

        This will be useful exercise in shutting the barn door [clichesite.com], covering the well after the baby's drowned, etc.

        At least the EU bureaucracy gets some cash:)

        I'd like to see correct, effective and appropriate action against Microsoft.

        The deliberate, slow-moving legal systems in the US and EU seem to be effectively delivering some nominal punishment to the drug dealer af

    • I forgot to quote the article text...

      "It was told to produce a new version of Windows with its media player tied in, as well as open up part of its code so other products could interoperate with it better."

    • Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Big Nothing ( 229456 ) <tord.stromdal@gmail.com> on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:07AM (#9355990)
      The article is written poorly. Microsoft is required to produce new versions of Windows (without Media Player built in) of the Windows versions that HAS Media Player built in.

      In other words: they'll have to release Windows versions that DONT have Media Player built in.
      • (as guys say further down) MS has to unbundle their player from the operating system, which is probably no small undertaking considering they built it in as a part of the OS, in addition to properly documenting their API's and releasing them for all to see/hear/use; we all remember how they released their API's when the US DOJ said they had to, which was half assedly. Besides, it's microsoft, it's more profitable to pay a team of lawers a few million and postpone a fine for a few years or eliminate a fine
    • Just in case the server crashes and burns (like they usually do),I have put up a mirror.
      The mirror of http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?News ID=1669 is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_707/www.techworld.c om/opsys/news/index.cfm%3fNewsID=1669 [demonmoo.com]

  • parking meter money (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Whitecloud ( 649593 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:02AM (#9355947) Homepage
    I dont know about you, but if someone tried to fine me 497.2 million i would be happy to wait three more years before paying.
    • ..and it's not really that much of money for them, or from such a crime. smaller cartels/monopolies have gotten quite hefty fines earlier as well, from much smaller crimes.

      -

    • Re:parking meter money (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Daengbo ( 523424 )
      The really good news with this is that, because Longhorn is so delayed, XP will actually still be the flagship product when they are forced to comply with the order. That rarely happens in MS cases like this.

    • Re:parking meter money (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You are assuming that the money even means anything to MS: it doesn't. It's the OTHER stuff that matters to Microsoft. The reason they adopted these practices in the first place was so that they could contiue to do the things the "opening parts of windows" section was meant to break.

    • Re:parking meter money (Score:5, Funny)

      by SEWilco ( 27983 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @02:37PM (#9359071) Journal
      I dont know about you, but if someone tried to fine me 497.2 million i would be happy to wait three more years before paying.

      OK, I fine you $497.2 million.
      I'll be happy to wait three years for you to pay.

  • Dammit! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by d_strand ( 674412 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:03AM (#9355956)
    3 years... sheesh, those administrators sure knows how to work effectively.

    Isn't there a chance that the appeal will be summarily (sp?) turned down? I thought that an appeal for a new trial was only granted when there was new evidence available?

    (I just submitted this like 1 minute before it was on the frontpage... sigh.. if only once I'd get a story accepted :-)

    • Re:Dammit! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kegster ( 685608 )
      Nah, you can also appeal on stuff like points of law, or excessive damages, usually.

      I don't think any legal system that isn't institutionally corrupt is particularly swift when it comes to appeals and stuff.

      Bleak House isn't entirely fiction you know.

      "The Wheels of Justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small" ;)

    • Re:Dammit! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ralph Wiggam ( 22354 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:15AM (#9356034) Homepage
      Do you know how many pages of stuff are involved in a case like this? Thousands and thousands and thousands. A group of poor bastards have to read all of them. That takes a long time.
      An appeal is not a new trial. It's the losing side claiming that the trial wasn't by the book and needs to be thrown out.

      -B

      • A group of poor bastards have to read all of them. That takes a long time.

        Anyone having to read and digest thousands of pages of legalese gets paid well to do it.

        Maybe not as well paid as the people that wrote the appeal, but well enough compared to other lines of work.

    • There was bound to be an appeal... (Score:5, Informative)

      by doodlelogic ( 773522 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:23AM (#9356096)
      The original decision was a determination of the European Commission. This is part of the executive branch of the European Union, and you could see its rulings as equivalent to rulings of the Office of Fair Trading/ Competition Commission here in the UK, or the Department of Justice in the US. There is an automatic right of appeal from such decisions to the judicial branch (the European Court): this is seen as an essential part of the system of checks and balances in the EU. Strictly, the case is currently being appealed to the European Court of First Instance: there is a further layer of appeal to the European Court itself.

      The three year gap between government making its mind up on the case it wishes to pursue and final determination of that case in the courts is not that different from what might be expected in the US I think, in a case involving this much money and complexity. The further appeal may stretch things out a little further but not necessarily as (a) the European Court tends to follow the decisions of the CFI and (b) the Court has the power to call the case before it immediately, leapfrogging the intermediate stage (I believe again this is a similarity with the US Supreme Court- Federal Courts relationship, on which the European judicial institutions are modelled).
    • Actually for civil trials in most jurisdictions you can generally only appeal on matters of law, not matters of fact.

      However this isn't an appeal from a court; it's an appeal of a quasi-judicial decision taken by the EC competition authorities. So the grounds for appeal are very wide.

  • Interest (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rubicon7 ( 51782 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:04AM (#9355965)
    Assuming 1) it takes three years for the appeal process to be completed, and 2) Microsoft will not pay the fine until they *lose* the appeal, will they also be liable for the interest on the money? Its not an insignificant amount...
    • seriously, it probably is an insignificant amount

    • Re:Interest (Score:2, Informative)

      by Rakshasa Taisab ( 244699 )
      From what i read back when they lost the case they need to comply immediately (unless EU decides to wait for the appeal to finish). If they win the appeal they get a refund with interest.

    • Its not an insignificant amount...

      Actually it is more than you may think. Microsoft's $56b cash hoard is bigger than most investment funds in the world. Hence, they get the best rates, the best opportunities and the best return [uiuc.edu].

      • That was an article from early '00 - when Microsoft made a fortune from its VC investments. The world has changed - now they lose money on many of their start-up investments. (You think they're bad? Check out the recent success, or lack thereof, of Intel or Applied Materials Ventures.)

        And having $56bn makes it hard for Microsoft to get "the best rates". It cannot move money quickly. Essentially it has to own US Treasury Bonds (nothing else is liquid enough for them), and we all know what they yield (especi

  • This is great (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cculianu ( 183926 )
    Everyone in the software industry realizes Microsoft is this big 800 lb gorilla. They have such power over the personal computer market. They can make or break whole companies or new ideas because of their control over the consumer PC experience. I am so glad that they are getting smacked around a bit in Europe, because really their control over such a huge market is anti-capitalistic and harmful to the market. Monopolies rarely serve entities in the market other than the monopolist. It's good to see t

    • Re:This is great (Score:5, Insightful)

      by blueZhift ( 652272 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:20AM (#9356076) Homepage Journal
      Not only that, but this can be good for Microsoft too in the long run because it will force them to compete. Even the best intentioned companies can put out rubbish when they don't have the gun of competition to their heads.

      • You really think so? I think it'll just be the same... people will just look it as a new version of Windows Media Player and continue to use it. No matter what they do, when the world sees Microsoft in front of it, they feel at home. Damn monopoly..
  • If the ruling goes into effect before the appeal is concluded, and if Microsoft wins with the appeal, will we be seeing Microsoft suing the EU for revenues lost during that time? I can see them borrowing the RIAA's calculator and racking up a very high bill for the EU...

    • Re:Lawsuits in 3 years? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Dosn't Britan charge the looser of a court case the court costs? I think if you bring a lawsuit in that country and the defendent wins then you have to pay his lawyer bill? Anyone from there or a country that has this type of law system elaborate? Could you imagine the bill if MS wins the appeal?

      • Losing party pays (Score:5, Informative)

        by doodlelogic ( 773522 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:31AM (#9356137)
        This AC is basically correct. Losing party pays used to be the rule until the new Civil Procedure Rules came into force in England and Wales in 2001(Scotland and Northern Ireland having separate legal systems).

        Now, generally, the losing party pays BUT if you've been unreasonable (e.g. by refusing to settle a case, then winning, but by less than the amount you were offered to make a deal), the winner can now get stumped with the loser's legal costs (from the date the offer was made).

        AFAIK and IANAL but I thought most Commonwealth countries had a system of losing party pays. US is somewhat different, I think.

        This case is going to be different again though as it is brought by the European Commission, in the European Courts where national laws and court procedure are irrelevant.
      • Not in all cases, and its basically unheard of for an appeal case, which this is. Its the Judges decision as to who to award costs to, if anyone at all, and he can award a percentage instead of the entire costs as well.
  • From article: "Microsoft has expressed disappointment with the EU ruling."

    In related news: Getting stabbed in the face hurts. For a while.

  • With appeals (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:13AM (#9356022)

    punishments can go up as well as down, its possible a judge can rule that the previous courts punishment wasn't harsh enough

    Both Microsoft and Apple have a huge number of lawsuits to deal with this year (thats even affecting stock/futures), do you think the entire industry has legal problems or is it a trait specific to American companies ?

  • I my GOD! (Score:1, Funny)

    by arcanumas ( 646807 )
    They have prepared the Chewbacca Defense!

  • What if microsoft wins? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Barsema ( 106323 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:16AM (#9356044) Homepage
    What happens if Microsoft loses its request to suspend the remedies, so is forced to pay the fine and open up parts of Window's and subsequently wins the apeal?

    OK, the EU can repay the fine (with intrest) but once the code is open it stays open.

  • and the winner is.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by millahtime ( 710421 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:16AM (#9356045) Homepage Journal
    The lawyers who manipulate this system of constant appeals.
    • Your statement is an ignorant and opinionated one.

      This is not a case of 'constant' appeals (whatever that may mean and as a lawyer I can tell that U haven't come across a situation where there are 'constant' appeals). The Commission gave a decision. It can be appealed to the European Court of Justice. And that's it. The end. No more appeals.

      It's good that the decision can be appealed. Would you imagine the horror of a system where a bureaucrat's decision cannot be appealed?
      • True, but what's the point of having a trial in the first place when it was totally obvious that Microsoft would appeal any decision that would be bad for them? That's just wasted money on the first trial, since we all knew from the start there would be a second one.

      • Erm, I would of thought that this post was _informative_.

        Thanks for the clarification Dusabre.

  • Even if they lose... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by the_rajah ( 749499 ) * on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:16AM (#9356049) Homepage
    it's a drop in the bucket compared to their $60 Billion in cash. It is just a simple "cost of doing business" for them. Not that I wouldn't be surprized if they rolled over on this without and appeal, but think about it.

    "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
    • Even if you have 60 billion dollars, losing over 1% of your 'stash' is likely to leave a sting. But even if it didn't, the thing that Microsoft would be most worried about is opening up their source code and not being able to ship windows with the windows media player as standard.

      Although I'm betting that if this does get enforced, every time you click a media file on a fresh install you'll automatically be linked straight through to the 'Download WMP 10 Here! Now with extra DRM! Here! 100% Free!' page.

    • Re:Even if they lose... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jimicus ( 737525 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:29AM (#9356125)
      You missed the point. The 497 million euro fine isn't supposed to achieve much. Being forced to open their APIs and standards is the kicker.

      Samba, for instance, could go from being a pretty good if not always complete implementation of SMB to a complete drop-in replacement very quickly indeed. Developing a complete replacement for Exchange which can interoperate with an existing Exchange setup becomes much more faesible.
      • There's the little detail that the Samba guys appear to have a deeper and better understanding of how SMB actually works than anyone left working on it at Microsoft ;-)

        • Re:Even if they lose... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by plj ( 673710 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @02:06PM (#9358768)
          Not just that, but there is also the detail, that the EU didn't require MS to license anything for free, just "for a reasonable price". This means that neither Samba nor any other GPL'd software will benefit anything from this decision, unless someone big enough (perhaps IBM, for example) manages to negotiate an unlimited license for themselves.

          However, other proprietary software vendors can now take any piece of LGPL'd ore more loosely (like BSD) -licensed OSS, and develop proprietary extensions to it using a license aquired from MS. This is still better for market than MS only -solutions.

    • Re:Even if they lose... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by michael_cain ( 66650 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:03AM (#9356407) Journal
      it's a drop in the bucket compared to their $60 Billion in cash. It is just a simple "cost of doing business" for them.

      It's not the fine that's the big deal in this case, it's the requirement that they build and sell a version of Windows without Media Player bundled and/or integrated. Assuming that it stands up on appeal, it sets a precedent that MS cannot arbitrarily bundle and/or integrate what were applications "into" the OS. And that they have to reveal the APIs so that other firms can develop components that can be used in place of the MS ones.

  • Windows code (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Nicholas Evans ( 731773 )
    The story says they need to open up some code for all us little people. I can't wait for the EU to sue them again over the license they'll put the code under...

  • 600 million dollars (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Prince Vegeta SSJ4 ( 718736 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:25AM (#9356104)
    well about 612.7, but anyway is this part of the judgment enough for M$ to care about other than how it looks in the press?

    Looking at the current stock price of 26.13 we calculate the number of outstranding shares at about 10,792,192,882.

    The last dividend payment was 0.16 a share, which would come in a total of $1,726,750,861.08 , so they cut the dividend by a third for one quarter - big deal.

    I guess what they really care about is having to open up their source, with all of the recent exploits, one can only imagine what will happen if the source is public knowledge (a whole new can of worms - ba da bing). It could be a public relations fiasco, especially if it comes to light that there are many exploits that are or should have been known by MS.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:25AM (#9356105)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Alternetive players (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bcmm ( 768152 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:26AM (#9356106)
    Is there going to be anything to stop Microsoft associating media files with a little program that says something like: "You do not have Windows Media Player installed. Windows Media Player is required to view media. Click here to download Windows Media Player."?

    Then all the normal users would still use WMP.
    • Yes. The whole order was mostly to help OEM's, as vast majority of users will use whatever OS came preinstalled with their box. Thus, MS can perhaps make such file associations to retail versions - although I somehow suppose that that already would be found to be a violation of the order - but now an OEM, who has decided to preinstall a program X in place of WMP, can re-associate those files to be opened in that program.

  • my knee jerk response (Score:2, Interesting)

    by zogger ( 617870 )
    I honestly don't think MS is as much interested in the fines (although it is a significant sum) as in the public blackeye from the ruling, and being forced to reveal source code. I would guess they have something to hide in the source code, as in "stolen" code, and perhaps quite a few "bits" of it. I also think this applies to a slew of closed source softwares.

    Whatsay any AC closed source developers? Is theft of open source rampant?
    • 'I would guess they have something to hide in the source code, as in "stolen" code, and perhaps quite a few "bits" of it.'

      I would imagine that is part of it, but also what is the potential for new onslaught of viruses?
      • That onslaught could easily be triggered when people see how poorly written windows is. That will show more of the backdoors that have been left open through stupidity or carelessness.

      • for sure (Score:2, Insightful)

        by zogger ( 617870 )
        I neglected that, but sure, that has to be a part of it as well. It would cripple them completely. I doubt you'd be able to even use windows on the net then. Who knowth though... And I am not shy about saying I hope it happens to them, that eventually they get broken up, lose their various incorporation charters, the whole nine yards. Some of the execs actually serving hard time behind bars.. Even if that means
        rutan needs to find new financing...

        They, same as everyone else in this world, had a chance t

    • I truly want to suspect "yes, they're all b*stards", but in truth I think probably not - well, at least not theft. For one thing, why don't closed-source houses just use BSD-licensed open-source? No theft involved. It's worked for Apple, and IIRC even Microsoft has done it (IE has old NCSA-Mosaic code?) Secondly, it's just too damn risky. All you need is one (ex-)employee with a grudge, proof and the phone number of the FSF.

      Note that I'm not saying all closed-source development shuns open-source code;

      • I'm not a coder, but I do observe how business works. There's these things like deadlines, over hyped sales, etc and the temptation is right there. I know you can't "steal" open source and free code, but I don't know how to phrase it more accurately. You got a flock of PHBs breathing down your neck,because some clients are breathing down their necks, or the "stock" holders, etc, you can see some shortcuts to take to get them off your back. I've seen it first hand in other industries, so I imagine software i
        • I'm not a coder, but I do observe how business works. There's these things like deadlines, over hyped sales, etc and the temptation is right there. I know you can't "steal" open source and free code, but I don't know how to phrase it more accurately. You got a flock of PHBs breathing down your neck,because some clients are breathing down their necks, or the "stock" holders, etc, you can see some shortcuts to take to get them off your back. I've seen it first hand in other industries, so I imagine software i
          • I didn't, I just said a deadline. It *might* be the next day, but it can be any arbitrary time forward that would indicate it couldn't be finished by the date specified, given the x-amount already acomplished in the y-time of the past. A "deadline" is not a specific length opf time unless yopu are specifically discussing an exact circumstance, as I was not. I was generally speaking. And what, you've never seen a project that was close to a "deadline" and not near finished, in ANY business you've been asso
            • And to be very specific going back to the original article, I would be beyond surprised if there wasn't a lot of code inside MS's shop *in general with all their products* that was "borrrowed" and not necessarily from a BSD styled licensed piece of code.

              How surprised? Because I'm tempted to video you finding out, just because I could sell it for a lot of money if you're being serious.

              No wait... you are being serious. Because only the One True Open Source Developers have ethics when it comes to doing thei

          • Where in this copyright-infringement-causing miraculous deadline of which you speak, is there the time for the person allegedly doing the copying to actually figure out which code to copy, work out how it works, and then work out how to splice it into their existing codebase?

            Well, since I am a coder, I have no problem seeing what the parent was talking about, and it doesn't necessarily have to involve copyright infringement, although it easily could.

            This isn't a task that could be done overnight . . .

  • Their deal with Sun could hurt their arguments (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ChrisRijk ( 1818 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:43AM (#9356235)
    Microsoft's Sun Accord May Hurt It in Dispute With EU [bloomberg.com]
    Competition Commissioner Mario Monti on March 24 said forcing the Redmond, Washington-based company to disclose the inner workings of the software that powers more than 90 percent of personal computers was necessary to ensure it doesn't exploit its monopoly. Microsoft argued the ruling will cause ``irreparable harm.'' The following week, it agreed to license technology when it settled its decade-long dispute with Sun.


    ``One could be forgiven for wondering whether this agreement and the huge payment to Sun were really needed, given that Microsoft has consistently stated there is no interoperability shortcoming beyond natural technological barriers,'' Lafitte said.

  • In other news (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @09:44AM (#9356239) Journal
    A key figure at Microsoft was found guilty of Murder. The justice department realised that a prison sentence would limit his freedom of movement, so in a last minute deal arranged by Microsoft's lawyers they agreed that the murderer would not use bladed weapons or bullets to attack people.

    I don't know why the argument about how this will harm Microsoft is getting any time at all. Surely that's the entire point of a large fine!

  • mistakes (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I don't need and want to wait and see another MS magic to happen in the courthouse. Microsoft has already warded off the bullet from U.S. DOJ. I don't want to see it again. Not twice.

    All MS got after the anti-trust trial was a slap on the wrist. Not to mention OJ trial, the last decade already showed us how ineffective the American justice system was. MS should now realize that not all countries are alike. "Just pay the suckers money and move on" should be their way of handling this, like they have d

  • How many users... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NeoSkandranon ( 515696 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:23AM (#9356583)
    How many users are going to simply go "Oh, damnit, this version of windows came without media player, I'll just hop on over to MS's website and download it then"
    as opposed to
    "Right there's no player on here so i'll search the internet and do some research and pick between iTunes Winamp WMP and..."

    • Re:How many users... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Most computers will be sold with another media player, if things go right. Not many people buy Windows alone. Good for competition.

  • Does Microsoft's reaction fool anybody? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stealth.c ( 724419 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:32AM (#9356645)
    They were thoroughly convicted here (they even lied in court), and they never changed. They get convicted of the same in the EU, which surprises nobody, and Ballmer claims to be shocked, *shocked* that the EU would do such a despicable thing. He goes on moaning as though he's been wronged. Is he fooling ANYBODY?

    This is an honest question, because I'm not sure but hope my hunch is correct: Is there *anyone* in the industry who gives one lick of credence to Microsoft's bitching about the ruling? Is there anyone who doesn't see directly through these press releases? Anyone who doesn't see this as a poorly contrived attempt at looking innocent?
    • Yes and no....

      It is quite simple, a lot of people being really hand-on with computers know about Microsoft behaviour, and not even all considering some Microsoft fanboys I have met. The problem is that those people - the people who know *and* care - are not in power.

      All the rest (meaning your parents, joe-six-pack-next-door, your PHB, the CEO of your company, anyone who doesn't fall in the power-user-ms-wary-class) either know and don't care about Microsoft behaviour or don't even know about the molopol

  • Don't hold your breath (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nagora ( 177841 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:38AM (#9356702)
    You'll have to work long and hard to find an organisation of less value and ability than the EU so basically, this decision is totally meaningless; it will never take effect. Even if MS pays the fine they can ignore the other requirements and just keep the EU going back to court and charging insignifcent fines like this one until the sun goes cold. Remember that MS can afford 100 fines this size without it even affecting their profits. After two or three iterations the technology will have changed so much that it wouldn't matter if MS did fall into line.

    TWW

    • Remember that MS can afford 100 fines this size without it even affecting their profits.

      Surely every fine this size will affect their profits.

      They won't be bankrupted, but the bad publicity can only knock sales. If it goes on the public record that Microsoft has used monopolistic tactics it could also make for some very interesting licensing price negotiations between Microsoft and its biggest customers, including governments, industry and universities.
      • Surely every fine this size will affect their profits.

        Only if you count interest gained on saving as part of profit (which you might well do). If you're talking about profit=sales-costs then the cost of these fines is absorbed by their bank balance.

        They won't be bankrupted, but the bad publicity can only knock sales.

        They've had years of atrocious publicity from buggy software, viriiii, monopolistic tactics, theft of code, and price gouging. Hasn't made much difference so far. They only thing they fear i

  • Quite right too! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bralkein ( 685733 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:44AM (#9356760)
    "But the decision of the EC might just come into effect very soon, regardless of Microsoft's appeal."
    Yeah, and damn good thing too! I don't see why the rulings that were made didn't just come into effect right away. I don't really know much about legal proceedings and such, but I'm pretty sure that if a fellow gets convicted of murder or whatever and sent to prison, he isn't just allowed to say "OMG NO FAIR I APPEAL MAN" and then he can walk free for three years until his appeal comes back.

    The way I see it, Microsoft should simply have to comply right away. Then, if they want to lodge an appeal claim, then they are perfectly entitled to do so. If they win, they get their fine back with interest, as well as compensation for any money lost due to the other rulings. Maybe, as they say, once their systems are openly documented they cannot simply be UN-documented if they are found to be innocent. Then again, if a jailed man is found to be innocent, his lost time can't just be given back. That's the way the law works, and it needs to be the same for everyone!
    • Maybe, as they say, once their systems are openly documented they cannot simply be UN-documented if they are found to be innocent.

      Sure they can -- all they have to do is not document their future patches and upgrades, and existing documentation rapidly becomes worthless.

  • cash grab (Score:1, Insightful)

    by kuzb ( 724081 )
    All this is is a government cash grab. No one is forced to use windows media player. There are many other alternatives to using it, and users are free to pick whichever they want.

    This isn't about monopolies, this is about opportunistic government offices and greedy people. Don't try to tell me that close to a half-billion dollars in cash is not a determing factor in this all. You can bet that at least a few people are going to retire on this. Think about that before you decide that the European govern
  • AFAIK, in central Europe (Germany, Poland, Czech) most people use other players (often BSPlayer combined with some kind of combo codec pack like KazaLite), due to inability of WMP to display subtitles in viewed movies. Even technically inept users know what divX movies are, and pc-based home-theater systems are quite common here.

    I suppose its true for other countries too, but have immediate knowledge only for these places (I lived there)

    Player without good subtitles handling is almost useless to non-anglo

  • Screw the code and the money (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @05:57PM (#9360947) Journal
    Screw the code.

    Screw the money.

    Screw "business remedies".

    All of these could be said to "excessively hurt Microsoft", and most importantly *do not reduce barriers to entry* (with the possible partial exception of the code).

    What competitors *really* need is Microsoft forced to open their file formats and network protocols, so that they can fully interoperate.

    Microsoft got where they were by bundling products together and keeping them from interoperating with competitors' products. Fining Microsoft and then letting them continue doing what they were doing may help out the EU, but doesn't do a whole lot to solve the problem.

    There are *very* few arguments Microsoft can make against opening file formats and network protocols. There is minimal IP value in each -- it doesn't take a smegging horde of PhDs years of research to create the Word file format. It does nothing but help the consumer, and helps mean that Microsoft always needs to compete.

Slashdot Top Deals

My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells down by the seashore.

Close