Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Software Your Rights Online

Microsoft Accepts Most EU Demands, But Not Over Source 587

Posted by timothy from the this-but-not-that dept.
JoeGi writes "Microsoft sent a letter to EU regulators Monday accepting 20 out of the Commission's 26 demands. According to BetaNews, 'The remaining stumbling block to full compliance is source code licensing' as Microsoft is refusing access to open source projects. Microsoft officials told BetaNews they are trying 'to find a way that companies can implement these technologies in code that would get distributed with open source products, but the source code wouldn't be published itself.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Accepts Most EU Demands, But Not Over Source More

Microsoft Accepts Most EU Demands, But Not Over Source

Comments Filter:

  • The article says "accepts"... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 04, 2005 @10:50PM (#12140425)
    The article says "accepts", as if they have a choice? This is the law, is it not?

  • Can't do it.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rdean400 ( 322321 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @10:51PM (#12140429)
    Microsoft's got the same problem Sun has with the JRE. They might be able to use Sun as an excuse.

  • Accepting demands (Score:5, Interesting)

    by T(V)oney ( 736966 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @10:51PM (#12140430)
    I wasn't aware Microsoft had a choice regarding which demands they would accept and would not accept.

    • Re:Accepting demands (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ctr2sprt ( 574731 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @11:32PM (#12140677)
      Sure, they have a choice. They can take their ball and go home. "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept." Of course, it would never go that far. MS would threaten it, maybe stop selling Windows in Europe for a few weeks, then both sides would panic and split the difference.

      Or MS can say "The fines for noncompliance will be lower than the cost of damage to our business if we do comply. So we're going to eat the fines." Even if that were true, eventually the EU would either crank up the fines or simply bar MS from selling Windows as-is, in which case we're back to option 1.

      • Re:Accepting demands (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Zemran ( 3101 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @11:49PM (#12140781) Homepage Journal
        IANAL etc. etc. but

        [ They can take their ball and go home. ]

        Yes, but they still would not be complying with the court order and would be subject to severe penalties. They could sell 4 copies of the new product and then go but then the cat would be out of the bag already.

        [ MS would threaten it, ]

        How to really offend a European court. They are not in the US, they have to respect the court or they will suffer. They do not have political clout behind them anymore. In fact if they threaten to do something like that it could easily be seen as contempt.

        [ "The fines for noncompliance will be lower than the cost of damage to our business if we do comply. So we're going to eat the fines." ]

        This would constitute contempt and could result in a lot more than just a higher fine. The person that makes the decision not to comply can be taken to court and can be sent to prison. I think that no high paid executive wants to do that. The fine for non-compliance is a fine for dragging your feet, now they are no longer dragging their feet, they have decided to not comply they enter a whole new game. I do not know exactly what has been said but if they said 'no' they are incredibly stupid and liable to real penalties. They should say 'we are going to, but we are having real difficulty and need more time. Maybe if the court could possibly help us by changing things a little we would be able to sort this out sooner'. Any refusal is bad but to ask for help is good.

      • Re:Accepting demands (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @01:25AM (#12141179) Homepage
        MS would threaten it, maybe stop selling Windows in Europe for a few weeks, then both sides would panic and split the difference.

        Another possibility is that MS could stop selling Windows in Europe and Europe could respond by nationalizing the copyright on all Microsoft, Inc properties and releasing them into the public domain. Meaning they wouldn't need Microsoft to sell windows. Hey, look at that trade surplus with the U.S. abruptly swell.

        Might be a bit difficult to pull off technically, but at some point the EU is going to do something if it wants to be considered a group of sovereign countries with their own laws, as opposed to just a funny kind of U.S. territory to which the constitutional protections on human rights don't apply. Cave on this and they'll be walked all over for the rest of their existence.

        • Re:Accepting demands (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Erwos ( 553607 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @08:35AM (#12142620)
          "Another possibility is that MS could stop selling Windows in Europe and Europe could respond by nationalizing the copyright on all Microsoft, Inc properties and releasing them into the public domain."

          I love how this "solution" is bandied about. Is this really the precedent you want to set? IE, a European country suddenly is doing "too well" in the US, so they just nationalized? Europeans love to talk tough about how their software industry is just going to _pulverize_ the US's, but if everyone just keeps ignoring the other guy's copright, there won't be much industry left.

          _Real people_ own Microsoft. It's not like it's just some shadowy group of owners plotting evil against the world. If you're an American with _any_ money in the stock market (which includes such things as 401k's, mutual funds, IRAs, etc), you most likely own some Microsoft stock. The political repercussions of hitting Microsoft like this are FAR greater than most Europeans on here apparently imagine. Five rich guys don't amount to much. Fify million middle-class Joes are a rather substantial voting bloc, and the last thing you want for them to start voting is "SCREW THE EU!"

          The least of such sanctions would be from the WTO. Are you just going to ignore those, proving, in reality, you don't give a fig about keeping your word than Microsoft? That all this talk of "international rules" is really just doublespeak for organized mob rule?

          In fact, it could lead to a full out economic embargo - you can't just take what you want when it becomes convienient in the civilized world, because people will simply stop giving. If the EU does indeed have a trade surplus, you just shot your own foot making some sort of idiotic statement about the EU.

          -Erwos

  • ...wtf? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Nicholas Evans ( 731773 )
    Microsoft officials told BetaNews they are trying 'to find a way that companies can implement these technologies in code that would get distributed with open source products, but the source code wouldn't be published itself.'"

    Because not being allowed to distribute code is totally opensource.

    Really, wtf are these people on?

    • Re:...wtf? (Score:5, Informative)

      by amliebsch ( 724858 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @11:02PM (#12140506) Journal
      RTFA. The dispute has to do with licensing Microsoft's proprietary code, and whether or not they were locking open-source projects out of the licensing agreements. MS probably was, out of fear that if their code was incorporated into an open-source project, it would be open-sourced. The EU is not requiring MS to open-source their code.
      • It's a touchy situation for both Microsoft and Open Source development.

        The only way to write fully interoperable code is to have access to the source code, says the EU. Microsoft counters with a system that allows access to *some* code, and it's very expensive to gain access to it.

        This would cut most Open Source projects out because they don't have the bankroll to pay for these fees, and even if they did most of them would be unwilling to pay for Microsoft code they can only look at.

        Many commercial fir

  • MSOSS (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 04, 2005 @10:52PM (#12140433)
    As an act of goodwill Microsoft has decided to open source minesweeper.

  • so-long (Score:4, Insightful)

    by suezz ( 804747 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @10:53PM (#12140445)
    I would tell them to meet all 26 or hit the road.

    Eu doesn't need microsoft - microsoft needs them so I would tell them to fsck off if they don't comply with everything. after all you are their customers and being Microsoft they should be wanting to meet the customers demands - isn't this the reason they implement their crap - you know like put out the next IE7 - cause their customers asked them for it.
    • Both Microsoft and the European Community government are new entities. Neither has the limits of their powers defined or tested.
      Many people besides the programming community and the politicians are watching this fight as it will define how the other major oligopalistic corporations will deal with the EU bureaucrats in the future.

      Microsoft needs the EU enforcement apparatice to maintain its monopoly and the European Union bureaucracy runs on Microsoft's software.

      This whole showdown is a 'tempest

  • Is this news anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by philovivero ( 321158 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @10:53PM (#12140448) Homepage Journal
    Government agency tells Microsoft "You've been bad. Here is your punishment." Microsoft tells government agency "Your punishment is bad, yes. But we do not accept your punishment. Instead, here is what we'd rather the punishment be." Government agency tells Microsoft "No, you will comply." Microsoft gives some money to the government agency. Government agency says "Aaah. We've reconsidered. Microsoft has actually chosen a very reasonable punishment for itself."

    • Re:Is this news anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @11:07PM (#12140535) Journal
      I seriously got the impression here on Slashdot that the EU was a reasonable, progressive, and moral government, and that it was the United States that was corrupt and doomed for destruction.

      I hope Europeans can stop complaining about our corrupt government, and Americans can stop whining about European governments in general, and we can all collectively recognize the lameness of basically all big world powers.

      • Re:Is this news anymore? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by back_pages ( 600753 ) <<back_pages> <at> <cox.net>> on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @12:17AM (#12140906) Journal
        I seriously got the impression here on Slashdot that the EU was a reasonable, progressive, and moral government, and that it was the United States that was corrupt and doomed for destruction.

        Are you kidding me? What, pray tell, convinced you that the EU was the shining city on the hill that split from all known history? I always figured it was a bunch of people trying to broker power for their own benefit, that power being granted in turn for keeping some decorum of law and order. Maybe I was the cynic?

        I'm hardly an anachist, but show me the government that hasn't fallen and I'll show you a young government.

        I hope Europeans can stop complaining about our corrupt government, and Americans can stop whining about European governments in general, and we can all collectively recognize the lameness of basically all big world powers.

        And then what? We'll all enroll in Philosophy 101 and get stoned? Ya know, they don't call the Empire an empire for nothing. Enjoy whatever moral superiority you suppose you have. I'll enjoy my days as part of the Empire, and afterwards, we'll see who had a better time.

    • Learn thy geography (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @02:21AM (#12141434) Journal
      The problem for MS is that:

      1. "EU government" really means something fundamentally different than "USA government". No, I'm not gonna bash the USA or anything. The EU just isn't one country. The U stands for UNION, and it's a union of independent nations.

      What passes for "EU government" or "EU agency" is just a shifty diplomatic treaty between countries that follow their own interests and have their own population to impress. If you bribe, say, a German bureaucrat in an EU agency, you'll have all the other EU countries screaming bloody murder, if only to push their own bureaucrat in his/her place.

      (Which also answers the usual "bet the EU wouldn't do that to their own companies" moans: there isn't such a thing as an EU company. If the EU failed to punish, say, a German monopoly, it would have France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, etc, screaming bloody murder.)

      So there isn't just one government to bribe. By the time you went through all the governments to bribe, one of them would have the next election.

      2. Speaking of elections, most EU countries have more interesting politics. They don't have two parties, both cattering to the corporations, for a start. Your average European's country's election is "won" by an unstable alliance of parties, neither of which usually has a majority on its own.

      It's a system which works precisely _because_ politicians are, well, politicians. (Said in all possible contempt.) It's a system where, in fact, they make populism and demagogy work.

      The "winner" doesn't get 4 years in which they can just rake in bribes and catter to the higher bidder with impunity, and the opposition doesn't just wait for their turn to rake in the bribes with impunity. There isn't any such thing as having an almost guaranteed turn at it: lose enough popularity and you can turn from an alliance leader to a minor member of someone else's alliance in the next elections. And even if you "won", the more other parties you need in a coalition for a majority, the more concessions you'll have to make to get them to support you, so better not end up too low.

      And more importantly, even if you won, alliances can be formed the other way around at any moment, if that is perceived as the more populist thing to do for those small parties in your coalition. If the "winning" party has, say, 41% of the places in the parliament, they might at any moment find themselves switched from leading a majority coalition of parties, to being the opposition because everyone else made a 59% coalition against them. The small members of a coalition really have nothing to lose from switching sides like that: they'll end up members of the majority coalition either way, so they might as well just pick the side that looks more popular.

      Bribery does exist in Europe's politics, but it's usually a lot more subtle than that, and offers more subtle benefits. You won't see a politician just openly being bought by a cartel and lobbying full time for them, or a party just openly forcing the DOJ to bend over for a corporation. That's the kind of thing that's plain political suicide down here, one way or the other: if you don't get kicked out by your party to save face, that party becomes the opposition very quickly as alliances form the other way around.

      So basically short of bribing every single political party in Europe, it's not easy for MS to just "give some money to the government" and get a free ride out. And bribing every single political party would be a pretty costly exercise even for MS.

  • No problem (Score:5, Funny)

    by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @10:53PM (#12140451)
    I'm sure we can get some people to upload a torrent with the code in question...oh wait!

  • Why force them to license the source? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LiENUS ( 207736 ) <slashdot&vetmanage,com> on Monday April 04, 2005 @10:54PM (#12140453) Homepage
    Licensing the source-code does not do much, a much better solution would be to require them to open the patents and specifications up for their drm and media formats. This gives their competitors a firm standing to enter the market with them. It would also allow opensource implementations of their media formats on linux with full drm support.
  • Sorry about the pun, but it seems like accountability is easily trumped by bank account ability.

    I'd give anything to see the EU tell Microsoft to follow all 26 or face a continent-wide ban. Can you imagine any single one of us, after being found guilty of something, picking and choosing our punishments in a court of law?

  • Maybe I'm confused (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Pinefresh ( 866806 )
    I don't see why Microsoft should have to turn over their source code without any kind of compensation. They did develop the product, and it seems to me that they should be able to profit from it. In my opinion the demands of the EU are in this case unreasonable.

    • Re:Maybe I'm confused (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by wcdw ( 179126 )
      Yes, you are. MS is trying to prohibit ANY open source project from providing code for any parts of 'their' technology. It is NOT about MS's source code, it's about everyone else's.

    • Re:Maybe I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @11:15PM (#12140584)

      I don't see why Microsoft should have to turn over their source code without any kind of compensation. They did develop the product, and it seems to me that they should be able to profit from it. In my opinion the demands of the EU are in this case unreasonable.

      It's because they broke the law. It's a punishment that attempts to correct some of the damage they did. It's like this a guy mugs and old lady takes the cash in her purse and bets it all on a number in roulette. He wins big then the cops nab him. The judge just said, "the money he won goes to charity as part of his punishment."

    • I don't see why Microsoft should have to turn over their source code without any kind of compensation.

      There have been entire magazines whose editorial policy was to publish articles describing how the various MS implemenations of APIs and protocols deviated from the official external MS documentation. Perhaps MS has cleaned up their internal situation over the past few years, but various insiders have been quoted in the past saying things that suggest that even MS considers the source code the only r

    • "I don't see why Microsoft should have to turn over their source code"

      Aside from the fact that they aren't required to turn over source, this is like asking "why can't that (American) guy buy a gun? It's a constitutional right!" while ignoring the fact that he's a convicted felon and is still out on parole. MS was convicted of being a monopoly, and as such must comply with the law regardless of what you think companies should be allowed to do.

  • Code? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dmaxwell ( 43234 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @11:06PM (#12140531)
    MS' code being out there would cause nothing but SCO style problems anyway. What is needed is to force (full) disclosure of (actual) protocols and formats. The last thing we need is accusations of improperly using MS' own implementation.

    Other people's code isn't necessarily good documentation and usually won't drop into another project's tree anyway. Why is there such emphasis on code? Should we be talking about specifications?

  • What about (Score:5, Interesting)

    by deutschemonte ( 764566 ) <lane.montgomery @ g mail.com> on Monday April 04, 2005 @11:07PM (#12140537) Homepage
    open formats/standards? They should force Microsoft to use the .odf format that KOffice and OpenOffice now use as default?

    If they would just take away Microsoft's virtual monopoly on the office document format it would make it easier for users to switch to open alternatives.

    I have always said that switching people to open software on Windows is the first step to switching people to open software period.

    To me the lack of forced open document formats and standards compliance is the only thing keeping open software from grabbing large market share from Microsoft.

    • Re:What about (Score:3, Insightful)

      by scdeimos ( 632778 )
      open formats/standards? They should force Microsoft to use the .odf format that KOffice and OpenOffice now use as default?
      Yes, except the first thing MS would do in response is start adding proprietary extensions to the ODF format so as to break it for everyone else.

  • AP Wire Text (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 04, 2005 @11:19PM (#12140607)
    This has more information than the BetaNews article - full AP Text.

    Microsoft says it will meet most EU demands

    By ALLISON LINN
    AP BUSINESS WRITER

    Microsoft Corp. says it will meet most demands by European Union regulators on making software blueprints available to competitors, including lowering licensing fees, but is seeking further talks on some issues.

    Microsoft said it delivered a letter to EU regulators on Monday detailing its intentions.

    The EU last month threatened new fines if Microsoft doesn't make it easier and cheaper for competitors to see the blueprints, known as source code.

    Brad Smith, Microsoft's top lawyer, said the Redmond, Wash.-based company told the European Union it isn't opposed to licensing the code to open-source developers as long as it's assured that its intellectual property will be safeguarded.

    Open-source programs led by the Linux operating system pose perhaps the most serious threat to Microsoft because their code is freely shared, while Microsoft closely guards its source code.

    Click Here
    Smith said Microsoft also wants clarification on whether concerns that view its source code can develop and distribute software outside of Europe.

    EU spokesman Jonathan Todd said Monday afternoon that he could not yet confirm that the Commission received Microsoft's latest letter, but said "We have received a letter in response" to our questions that Microsoft sent before Easter.

    He said the EU was "studying it carefully." He gave no further comment on the content of Microsoft's letter or on Monday's announcement

    The EU compelled Microsoft, in a March 2004 antitrust ruling in which it fined the company 497 million euros ($640 million dollars), to share the source code with competitors who make server software so their products can better communicate with Windows-powered computers.

    European regulators also ordered Microsoft to produce a Windows version minus its multimedia player to provide a more level playing field for competitors such as RealNetworks Inc.

    Microsoft has complied with that order but says it will only make the software available in Europe. Dow Jones Newswires reported last week that Dell Inc., a leading computer maker, would not offer the stripped-down Windows version as an option.

    Company officials would not provide The Associated Press with a copy of the letter they submitted to the EU on Monday.

    But they listed these changes that they said they had accepted in the server source code reviewing procedure:

    -Microsoft will customize licenses for developers who want to pick and choose from source code rather than buying a preset package.

    -The company will give competitors a price break on reviewing source code and more time to decide whether they want to license it - charging 500 euros ($645) a day for up to eight days instead of allowing a maximum of two days at 3,850 euros ($4,965) for the first day or 5,390 euros ($6,950) for two days.

    Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said the company was working on a new set of prices for licenses to address the commission's concerns that previously proposed fees of $100 to $600 (77 euros to 465 euros) per server were too high.

    Desler would not elaborate on any details of the new royalty fee structure.

    Andy Gavil, a Howard University law professor who is co-writing a book on Microsoft's antitrust battles, says the company has good reason to try to elongate the process, especially given its plans to appeal the March 2004 order.

    Microsoft has been ordered to comply with the ruling even as it seeks an appeal.

    Gavil said Microsoft is concerned about losing the freedom to build new features into its operating systems and that sharing too much with competitors will weaken its business.

    "In a sense, they're trying to define a software philosophy and a business strategy," Gavil said.

    Smith emphatically denied that the company has any interest in slowing down the proces

  • Waiting.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by priestx ( 822223 )
    Waiting for Microsoft themselves, to put out a form of GPL they can use, to their advantage of course.

  • Open for Negotiation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by digitallife ( 805599 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @11:27PM (#12140653)
    For craps sake. If the government takes me to court and slaps the shit out of me, I do my god damned punishment or the police stick their boots up my ass. I didn't realize these things were open for negotiation. Lets all just get it out in the open: Big companies own us... pretty much literally.

  • Well, it's the EU's move now (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pinefresh ( 866806 ) <william...simpson@@@gmail...com> on Monday April 04, 2005 @11:31PM (#12140666)
    It seems like everyone in this thread is assuming the EU is just going to take it, but no where in that story did I read that they had made a response or statement. They haven't given in yet, it'll be interesting to see how this story unfolds.

  • TFA is wrong! Not about source code! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anon E. Muss ( 808473 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @12:01AM (#12140832)

    As is often the case, the press is completely misreporting the issue. The EU never demanded that Microsoft release their own source code. What MSFT is required to do is license their network protocols and provide sufficient documentation to licensees so they can create their own implementations. A similar condition was part of the US antitrust case.

    The license that MSFT offered is (1) expensive, and (2) specifically prevents licensees from releasing the source code to their own implementations. The EU is mostly upset about the cost, and is therefore completely missing the point. The only effective remedy would be to require that MSFT publish the protocol specs and allow anybody (e.g. the SAMBA team) to implement them.

    Some would say that such a compulsory license amounts to the EU stealing MSFT's intellectual property. Bullshit! Do you believe that making them pay a fine is stealing their money? You can oppose the whole concept of antitrust regulation on Libertarian grounds, but that battle was fought and lost, the argument is over, and antitrust is settled law. The EU has the right to set antitrust rules and punish the violators.

  • O. J. Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @12:02AM (#12140836)
    Meanwhile, in an alternate universe:
    In other words, O. J. Simpson today was convicted of murdering Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman. People familiar with the case stated that O. J. agreed to the terms of the verdict, except the one that says he must go to prison. The court is therefore waiving his prison sentence, and letting O. J. go free. Anyway, he said he was sorry, and he promised not to do anything like that again.

  • opening the source would be admitting... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Progman3K ( 515744 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @12:38AM (#12140996)
    opening the source would be admitting that they are infringing a number of patents

  • not their source code, other source code (Score:5, Insightful)

    by idlake ( 850372 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @01:10AM (#12141109)
    "We are working with the Commission to try to find a way that companies can implement these technologies in code that would get distributed with open source products, but the source code wouldn't be published itself so that the confidentiality of our information is preserved," the spokesperson added.

    It sounds like Microsoft is not even talking about access to their source code, they are talking about whether open source projects are permitted to distribute their own code necessary for interoperating with Microsoft code in open source form.

    In different words, Microsoft is trying to keep "confidential" exactly what the commission is requiring them to make public.

    Furthermore, since the only group of people they are trying to impose restrictions on is open source (since binary-only vendors have full access under the agreement already), this is a direct attack by Microsoft on open source.

    Well, it's good to see that Microsoft is validating open source through their action. Let's hope that the EU doesn't let them get away with this.

  • Who is John Galt? (Score:3, Funny)

    by NewUser9 ( 872935 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @02:30AM (#12141483)
    A sample conversation among international friends:

    European: "Well, but you see friend, this is necessary for the people. We're doing it for the people, after all."

    American: "Yeah, I get that, but aren't you afraid they'll just withdraw from the market?"

    European: "Ha! They wouldn't dare lose such a large piece of our thriving market. Why, why, that's 25 billion a year! Besides, do you really think our government would allow it? We could force them to stay after all. We could nationalize their entire business! What would they do then? Huh?"

    American: "I dunno... *shrugs* Who is John Galt?"

  • Foolish Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Eternal Annoyance ( 815010 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @04:48AM (#12141934)
    Microsoft currently has 2 choices:
    - Comply and nothing painful happens.
    - Don't comply and be in for a world of pain.

    There are *no* alternatives to these options.
    There is *no* negociation possible.

    This is the EU, not the US.

  • what am i missing? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by erikkemperman ( 252014 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @05:24AM (#12142061)
    EU: We find that you (MS) are breaking competition laws, and we order you to take these here 26 measures to allow other companies to enter into fair competition. You either take all these steps unconditionally, pay a fine per unit of time of non-compliance, or ultimately could be denied access to the EU market.

    MS: Of course we respect your decision and intend to comply fully. Well, almost fully. You see, some of the measures you have ordered would tend to interfere with our monopoly and our capacity to abuse it. We are in a position to negotiate the terms of your punishment, because.. Well, because all your base are belong to us! EU customers are so completely locked in our proprietary formats that they will revolt if you deny them our products!

    This is like Don Corleone telling the court: yes, your honour, it's true, I am a mafia don. And I accept your punishment, except if it is too severe I will naturally have to use my position as criminal mastermind and have you whacked.

    What am I missing?

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close