Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


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

EC Suspends Microsoft Sanctions Due to Appeal 204

Posted by michael from the too-nice-for-their-own-good dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The European Commission has suspended sanctions against Microsoft stemming from a ruling that the group had abused its dominant market position."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EC Suspends Microsoft Sanctions Due to Appeal More

EC Suspends Microsoft Sanctions Due to Appeal

Comments Filter:

  • Easy fix (Score:5, Funny)

    by geek ( 5680 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @12:33PM (#9544084)
    Just patent sanctions in the EU. No more pesky anti-trust problems.

  • Hopefully (Score:1, Redundant)

    by BCW2 ( 168187 )
    M$ will lose the appeal.

  • And this is just... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by praedor ( 218403 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @12:35PM (#9544106) Homepage

    The beginning of the EU caving in to M$ and the US. It is the one of the last bumps in the road before the EU goes the US route of worshipping big corporations at the exclusion of all else. Corps can do NO wrong.

    • I totally agree. What we are seeing in the EU is that the EU parliament, ministers etc. are seperating themselves from the governments of the countries they're made up of. Hopefully EU elections will become more significant in the next years to counteract the trend. However, there are some monkey ministers who fear that without corporatist legislation the EU will fall short of its grandiose economic goals, all the while millions of euros are flushed down the toilet to pay for ministers' hotels, food (minist
      • Wasn't this always expected. When you put all your eggs in 1 basket, its much easier to carry, but also much easier to steal.

        M$ now has only a single set of people to influence in order to rule the whole European continent. And of course this does not just apply to M$...

    • Re:And this is just... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by f.money ( 134147 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @12:59PM (#9544325)
      This is stupid. When anyone appeals a judgement against them, the sentence is suspended until the outcome of the appeal - when the verdict is in doubt (it's being appealled), you shouldn't be punished.

      If MS loses the appeal, then the judgement will be reinstated. This is normal.

      jon

      • Re:And this is just... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by haruchai ( 17472 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @01:54PM (#9544734)
        If they lose the appeal, do they have to pay interest from the date of the original decision?
        If they stretch the case over a period of a couple of years, that could increase the cost significantly.
        Of course, in that time, M$ piggybank would have grown so much to make losing the appeal(s) neglible.

        • If they lose the appeal, do they have to pay interest from the date of the original decision?

          I don't think so, and it was always somewhat expected that this legal action would be drawn out. The money in question is peanuts anyway.

          The interesting point here is whether Microsoft's legal tactics will work more than once in Europe. It seems the top brass over here are willing to tell them where to go; from accounts I've read, they did exactly that to Microsoft's CEO during last-minute negotations. In that

      • When anyone appeals a judgement against them, the sentence is suspended until the outcome of the appeal - when the verdict is in doubt (it's being appealled), you shouldn't be punished. If MS loses the appeal, then the judgement will be reinstated. This is normal.

        You're missing two key points:
        1. Some of the penalties are only useful during a limited time period. For example: What good would an IE-free version of Windows 98 be to any of us right now? This SHOULD be a key consideration in decision, but

  • Foreseen (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sarah_kerrigan ( 764949 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @12:36PM (#9544114)
    Hello,

    The EC voted for patenting software. Why should we be impressed by this new decision?

    Kisses
    --

    • Re:Foreseen (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, 2004 @01:21PM (#9544511)
      The EP(arlament) voted against patenting software.

      The EP is choosen directly by voters.
      The EC is choosen by the states' govs.

      • Game not yet over (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        swpat game is not yet over nl parl might revoke the minister's vote [lwn.net] Even after that there's second reading, but it's better to stop at this stage. (Doing the same as the dutch in your country might help ;)
    • "The EC voted for patenting software. Why should we be impressed by this new decision?"

      Because we want M$ to desperately hemmorage money right and left anywhere it can even if it means their right to appeal is taken away?
  • This is sheer lunacy. Micro$haft was found in violation and needs to be punished.

    In my opinion the fine should have been collected _then_ returned if the appeal overturned the issue.

    Or maybe not returned even then.

    • Re:*sigh* Somebody must have been paid off... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It doesn't matter -- as has been said here before, these fines are part of the M$ business model. It's more cost effective to pay the occasianal multi-million dollar fine than it would be to obey the law.

      Not having to pay them isn't some welcome relief, it's just an unexpected bonus.
    • I agree. When you're thrown in jail for being convicted of a crime, they don't let you go just because you're put in for an appeal. They throw your ass in jail and you can wait there.

      The same should be true for monitary punishments. Pay up, and if you win, you can have it back. It's still better then jail time, because they can't give you back lost time.
    • i got no mod points but...
      certainly for a company with that much $$ laying around, its not unreasonable to collect the fine before the appeals process is done. im all for innocent until proven guilty, but you only need to be proven once. then you are proven guilty until overturned.
      • certainly for a company with that much $$ laying around, its not unreasonable to collect the fine before the appeals process is done

        Why should the justice system work differently for monied entities? Isn't that one of the complaints here, that they're being treated different because they've got money (they must have bought off somebody)? What happens when you're charged, in your mind unfairly, with a crime? Will you pony up then and ask for a refund if it's overturned?

      • Great idea, so suppose I am wrongly found guily of murder and sentenced to death should I be executed before the appeal which may prove me innocent concludes ?
        • Great idea, so suppose I am wrongly found guily of murder and sentenced to death should I be executed before the appeal which may prove me innocent concludes ?

          A death sentence is an irrevocable loss of life. We're talking about a fine against a large company. The fine could be collected and held in a court appointed account until the appeal is finished.

          And anyways part of these types of problems is that we're treating corporations like people. They aren't people - they are a company. Despite what the
  • From the article, just to avoid the /. effect:


    Microsoft has vowed to fight the EC's ruling
    The European Commission has suspended sanctions against Microsoft stemming from a ruling that the group had abused its dominant market position.

    The move came after the world's largest software company appealed against the decision at the EU court early in June.

    The EC stressed that the move was an "interim measure" until a court had ruled on Microsoft's request. Microsoft has also asked for a long-term suspension o

  • Court ruling (Score:5, Funny)

    by Zorilla ( 791636 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @12:39PM (#9544146)
    From article:

    Microsoft was ordered to unbundle the software within 90 days - that deadline runs out on Monday.

    Paraphrasing:
    EU: "You must unbundle the software in 90 days"
    Microsoft: "Is it ok if I decide to not do it instead of doing it?"
    EU: "Ok!"

    Sometimes, court rulings should be just that.

  • Let the market speak (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, 2004 @12:39PM (#9544148)
    Given that even CERT is now warning against teh use of some MS components I hope that the rest of the platform gets the thumbs down it richly deserves.

    Anyone involved in risk management shoudl by now have woken up to the fact that the MS platform combines high cost with high risk. Does it surprise anyone that people choose alternatives that combine low risk with low cost?

    The law is too slow - let the market decide.

    • Re:Let the market speak (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tuvai ( 783607 ) <zeikfried@gmail.com> on Sunday June 27, 2004 @01:00PM (#9544336) Journal
      The law is too slow - let the market decide.

      The entire point of these sanctions was to punish Microsoft for NOT letting the market decide. Anti-competative practices and monopolising in any situation is bad for a free market, even if the product meets the peoples needs.
    • The law is too slow - let the market decide.

      The market's too slow, let's decide in hand to hand combat! c'mon! It'll be fun! We're 100 times as many...

  • a little hypocracy.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hooya ( 518216 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @12:52PM (#9544270) Homepage
    on /. we complain about legislative measures to stop spam etc. why should MS be treated any differently?

    their monopoly and the choke hold on the market is coming to an end. we don't need no stinkin' corrupt legislation/lobbying to bring that about. let the big corps and the legislators shake hands and shake whatever else they do for each other. the people will have moved on. they will become irrelevent. and in this respect the GPL is brillient. it's a check-mate to them, using their rules, on their turf. long live the GPL/FOSS.

    yesterday it was apache/linux on the servers. today it's firefox on the desktop. tomorrow it will be one more. the dominos are toppling.

    • insightful? I think he was trying to be funny; at least I hope so.
      • No, I think he is absolutely right. While many of us would rather see the laws enforced without further delay, there is a good chance that the market will act first. Remember that in both the cases of the antitrust actions against IBM and AT&T market forces were already in effect before any action was taken by the courts. Had the PC "revolution" taken place only a few years earlier there would have been no point in busting up IBM (from the courts perspective). AT&T and the baby Bells since bro
    • their monopoly and the choke hold on the market is coming to an end. we don't need no stinkin' corrupt legislation/lobbying to bring that about.

      And on a similar note:
      Why do we waste all this effort thring to stop a guy who's shooting people? He'd run out of bullets eventually.

      That type of attitude is silly. The government exists for EXACTLY these type of situations.
      Someone is acting illegally. A government is acting to stop that. If a government is not going to act to enforce the laws it creat

  • Screw (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dark-br ( 473115 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @01:00PM (#9544333) Homepage
    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.

    • Re:Screw (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geek ( 5680 )
      "There are *very* few arguments Microsoft can make against opening file formats and network protocols"

      Untrue, intellectual property alone grants them the right to keep these closed.

      A better solution is for the court to rule MS must release fully functional versions of it's software for all of it's competitors operating systems. This free's people from having to use windows if they want Office or IE or whatever while still protecting MS's IP rights. Once people get out of windows new doors (pun intended) w
      • What's needed is legal recognition of when something has become "standard". It needs to be the kind of law that recognizes 'de-facto' instead of or in addition to 'de-jur'. As long as you're not a legally recognizable "standard" in this fashion, you can keep things as secret as you want. As soon as you pass the test, you MUST open the formats/protocols.

        Another type of "standard" that could be forced open: Any communications between the government and its agencies and the general public will be in formats t

      • Why IP? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by tepples ( 727027 ) *

        intellectual property alone grants them the right to keep these closed.

        I don't know what the root justification is for copyrights and patents in Europe, but in many countries, copyrights and patents exist to promote the progress of technology. Wouldn't such a strong barrier to entry run against this justification?

      • EU law explicitly allows you to reverse engineer a file or message format (i.e., by reverse engineering code) for any product that you own in order to interface with it. This is a rather nice quirk which acknowledges that people have a right to develop interoperable hetrogenous systems.

    • t doesn't take a smegging horde of PhDs years of research to create the Word file format.

      Nor does it take that much to reverse-engineer it.

      But they've banned reverse-engineering, didn't they? Argh...

    • "There are *very* few arguments Microsoft can make against opening file formats and network protocols. There is minimal IP value in each..."

      That may be true when it comes to the file format alone, but they also make the only tool that's 100% compatible to read/edit/write that format, which they sell for a pretty penny.

  • No suprises here... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @01:05PM (#9544384) Homepage
    Contrary to popular belief both here in the States, and abroad, there is nothing intrinsically more "advanced" about Europeans when it comes to greed. Like here, those in power are generally wealthy businessmen, and while they may have different ideas about what it takes to keep the hoi polloi happy (bare breasted ladies in advertising!), the truth is they are just as greedy and just as much "in the pocket" of corporate interests.

    So, I'm not surprised that patents, consumer rights as related to music, and now this Microsoft thing, are going in the favorable direction of Big Business, rather than the consumer.

    • Re:No suprises here... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The thing to remember is that if a law is unjust, you should break it. That's the way europeans normally work anyway, but computer geeks are often a bit different.

      The WORST thing that could happen is for computer geeks to interpret the law as some sort of declarative computer code like a makefile rule, and suddenly stop coding patent-infringing code if patents are legitimised in europe. If anything, we should go out of our way to write as much code as possible. Most laws only have as much power over y
    • This isn't about the consumer vs. Big Business. It's about Big Businesses like Sun that want to maintain their server share over a Bigger Business (but smaller in the server market) MS.

      If, in the end, the sanctions are upheld, it's pure speculation that it will help consumers (AKA lusers at Slashdot) in any way.
      • If, in the end, the sanctions are upheld, it's pure speculation that it will help consumers (AKA lusers at Slashdot) in any way.

        As the buyer for a company that uses server products, I *AM* a consumer. I am a consumer of IMB, or SUN, of Cisco, and many others.

        • Two points.

          First, your definition of "consumer" is wrong. You are merely acting on behalf of the company you work for, so the relationship is business to business.

          Second, as a customer of server products, your company may or may not benefit from the sanctions.

  • Microsoft's found the perfect scheme. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Sunday June 27, 2004 @01:06PM (#9544396) Homepage
    They've realized the product cycles of the software world are smaller than the amount of time it takes to run a court case. This basically means you can violate whatever laws you like, and no one will do anything, because they can't stop you until winning a court case; but by the time they manage to run the court case to completion, the company you were violating said law against is bankrupt, the product you were doing it with has been replaced, the violation is no longer relevant to what you're doing currently, and no one seems to care so much about punishment because what's happened is in the past...

  • "software codes" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lkcl ( 517947 ) <lkcl@lkcl.net> on Sunday June 27, 2004 @01:17PM (#9544480) Homepage
    without the EU entirely understanding what it means, the court has asked for "software codes" to be released. what i _intended_ them to ask for - specifically - was for all of microsoft's internal RFCs to be made public, plus all of their IDL files, and any other internal documentation (such as it is in some cases!!) relating to "interfaces".

    i cannot _quite_ understand how microsoft's lawyer believes, unless they are admitting that by releasing details of "interfaces" that somehow extra viruses will be written to target them, that "damage will be done to other software development companies".

  • Not surprising really (Score:4, Insightful)

    by !ucif3r ( 713159 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @01:22PM (#9544512) Homepage
    I am not at all surprised MS is making progress on this appeal. The ruling was really a piss poor way for the EU to flex its collective muscle against a US corporate giant. Not that MS doesn't deserve to be investigated for anit-competitive business practices. In particular the recent (or not so recent for some) revelations that MS has been funding nearly all of the so called independant studies showning MS products as better, faster, safer and even cheaper than open source. The problem here is much like the problem with the Kyoto protocal. It's the right idea but so poorly drafted that it renders it completely meaningless. It is about time someone put MS in its place, but if you are going to use bull**** allegations to do it then you are going to fail in the end.
    • They're hardly making progress. They've made an appeal, and while that's being handled the sanctions aren't in effect. Yet. If they lose the appeal, which I expect they will seeing as how they did what they were accused of, they sanctions will still be there. They might be amended... Some changed, others removed, or added. But all in all, Microsoft hasn't won anything yet.
      • Just not having the sanctions in effect during the appeal is a win for Microsoft, because by the time the appeal is over in 3 (or however many) years, their competitors will have already lost!
      • The fact that the sanctions were suspended is enough of a "win" for Microsoft -- if this is how the EU handles court rulings, then all it takes is a redundant series of appeals to indefinitely suspend the sanctions.

        Ideally, the sanctions would remain, despite the appeal, much like how in the 'States a convicted felon doesn't get his sentence suspended -- he continues to serve his time, despite the appeals process, and if he wins (presuming he doesn't die of old age first) he's released.
    • I am not at all surprised MS is making progress on this appeal. The ruling was really a piss poor way for the EU to flex its collective muscle against a US corporate giant.

      I'm so tired of this black-white those-who-are-not-with-us-are-against-us stuff, it makes me wanna puke.
      The EU court have fined and convicted so many EU corporations that it should have shown by now that they are doing what any court does: Applying its law and looking anyone gets what he deserves when he's trespassing it.

      Do we have to

    • They are stlling proceedings, not making process.

      They are entitled to it, the judcial systems in the different parts of the world simply are not equpped to deliver justice in a timely manner, that is why MS can stall things, but they will lose at the end (because it is as clear as water that they are doing unethicla and illegal things).

  • Sanctions suspended only for months -- not years (Score:5, Informative)

    by JPMH ( 100614 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @01:23PM (#9544520)
    The European Commission (ie the Executive branch) is not volunteering to suspend its antitrust sanctions for the full several years' duration of the Micosoft appeal process.

    What the Commission has offered is to suspend the sanctions only for a few months until the Court rules on whether they are acceptable as "interim measures".

    The European Court of Justice is expected to take several years to decide on the Microsoft appeal as a whole.

    But the ECJ ruling on appropriate "interim measures" is expected much sooner, literally within months.

    • Even a couple of months is enough to get Microsoft Media Player entrenched on a few million machines. Various applications will then assume Media Player is available and crash if it isn't. And then it doesn't matter if Microsoft is forced to offer a second Media Player-free version because it essentially "doesn't work" and no one can really use it.

      -

  • Smug Git! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by polyp2000 ( 444682 )
    Man I dont the BBC could have chosen a more smug / nazi- dictator style picture [blackapology.com] If they tried; Big-Up Beeb !
  • US: 0 EU: 0 MS: 2 Sunny Dubey

  • EU can go flock itself (Score:3, Informative)

    by TechniMyoko ( 670009 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @01:54PM (#9544731) Homepage
    The EU agreed and told Microsoft in March that it had 120 days to reveal details of its Windows software codes so rivals could design compatible products more easily.

    It appears they havent seen this [microsoft.com]

    As for unbundling windows media player, how do ppl without internet get a media player? Aside from media player classic, windows media player is the best one out there

    • The EU agreed and told Microsoft in March that it had 120 days to reveal details of its Windows software codes so rivals could design compatible products more easily.

      It appears they havent seen this      [msdn]

      As for unbundling windows media player, how do ppl without internet get a media player? Aside from media player classic, windows media player is the best one out there

      As to msdn it's the secret API calls and propietary formats that aren't listed on MSDN that rivals need to make compatible formats.
      And a

  • Not a fan, but... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bernlin2000 ( 791878 )
    I may not be the biggest fan of Microsoft, but it does seem unfair to force a company to remove software from it's offerings. It's not their fault that people don't look for a better media player, there are plenty out there. True that by bundling Windows Media player in Windows does cause a monopoly to form, but that doesn't mean some commission can up and say that they don't like that and Microsoft has to take it out and publish one without it. Shame on you EC!

  • Microsoft are playing a dangerous game... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bralkein ( 685733 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @04:37PM (#9545833)
    Jeez, if I were Microsoft I'd really be careful about how I play things right now. They're not fighting a case against Sun or IBM or something here, or against the government of their home country even, they're fighting a foreign government who really don't like them very much at the moment. They need to be careful about their actions throughout this appeal, because if it looks like they are trying to get out of it by using delaying tactics until Longhorn is released or something like that then they could definitely get bitten on the arse.

    I mean think about it for a minute, what government is going to tolerate Microsoft taking the piss out of them and trying to worm out of punishment in this way? Okay, the US government (no flamebait intended), but at least you can see their point of view... MS is a large, profitable US company, and hurting MS could also hurt the power of the US. However, this time we're talking about the EU, and although MS may employ many people in Europe or whatever, they are essentially a foreign company, and I do not think the EC really gives as much of a shit if it hurts MS or not.

    Anyway, I am no expert on international politics or legal proceedings or anything, but I am just imagining myself as a politician who is looking at Microsoft defying the legal judgement of my government and having a big old hearty laugh about it. I'd be pretty pissed off, and I'd be wanting to do something about it.
  • It has time and time again been seen that government antitrust just doesn't do the trick. It is blind to the serious threats to consumers and when it finally acts it is in a dubious and impotent manner.

    And it is obviously irrelevant which side of the atlantic it happens on.

    Abolish antitrust and make the markets freer. Let the small entrepreneurs snak the heels of the Microsoft gigant.

    http://liberterran.org

  • smug overload (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Cska Sofia ( 705257 )
    The picture of Mr. Gates in the article says it all, really...

  • So there it is (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Julia Cameron ( 616578 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @05:40PM (#9546194) Journal
    So there it is. Like the Americans, we oh-so-superior Europeans now know that we too have the best 'justice' that money can buy.
  • ...suspended sanctions against Microsoft stemming from a ruling...

    No no no no NO !!!!! What kind of logic is that? They're setting the example that Microsoft can get away with anything by introducing legal fights and making motion after motion to keep the thing in the courts forever. I'd bet Microsoft can afford to put the EC out of commission and/or bankrupt them before the EC will win any case, and when the EC will find that out, they'll let Microsoft have its way just to end the battle.

    No, the proper pr

  • Get some balls already (Score:3, Insightful)

    by iamacat ( 583406 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @02:06AM (#9548836)
    That could see the penalties suspended for as long as three years.

    EU courts found that Microsoft's prior behaviour is bad for their citizens, and yet they are going to allow this behaviour to continue for 3 more years? I understand suspending the fine, but since when suspected murderers are allowed to go and murder more people while their case is decided?

Slashdot Top Deals

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.

Close