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

 


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

EU Deadline Approaching for Microsoft 356

Posted by Zonk from the under-the-knife dept.
doga writes "As reported by various publications, Microsoft is facing its deadline tonight at midnight central European time. The commissioner has then to decide whether it implemented correctly the measures (windows without media player and interop documentation) or if it should be fined up to 5% of its daily sales." From the article: "European antitrust regulators, who have been at odds with Microsoft over its efforts to comply with its order, hope to make a decision by July 20 as to whether Microsoft has submitted an acceptable proposal for compliance, said Jonathan Todd, a spokesman for the European Union. That date is the last meeting of the European Commission before its summer recess."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Deadline Approaching for Microsoft More

EU Deadline Approaching for Microsoft

Comments Filter:
  • As I type, it is approx. 14:35 PST. Add 9 hours and one gets to 23:35.

    • Re:25 minutes to go! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Spad ( 470073 ) <slashdot.spad@co@uk> on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @05:43PM (#12688275) Homepage
      There's no real doubt that Microsoft will submit a proposal, however, given their previous efforts, it's likely to be another "Well we'll do *bits* of what you asked and charge people for it" proposal.

      20 days from now means something like $100,000,000 in retroactive fines even *if* Microsoft then immediately handed in an acceptable new proposal on the same day.

      And I'm still not sure if they've actually paid the ~500 million Euro fine that was imposed originally.

      • "And I'm still not sure if they've actually paid the ~500 million Euro fine that was imposed originally."

        It would be kool if they were to give that to the FOSS community, that would buy a lot of bounties ;).

        Perhaps with that money almost overnight FOSS could slay Microsoft.
    • ... but the realy question is, when will we know what or if MS submitted a new proposal?
  • Bill Gates: "Ooh, the Germans are mad at me? I'm so scared! Oooh, the Germans!"
    (ok, shamelessly stolen from The Simpsons)

  • For once ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by LadOuvE ( 683600 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @05:40PM (#12688240)
    Expect France to vote "Yes" on this one !
  • The deadline expires tonight.
    Then, it will take a few weeks to decide on a punishment (if any).
    Then a few more weeks to decide if the decision is the right one.
    Then another month to decide if the decision of the decision was a good one.
    Then submit it for a committee vote.
    Wait - who had the decision?
    I thought you had it? Where did it go?
    What were we deciding upon?
    I don't know. Let's hold a meeting and see if we can decide on it.
    What's for lunch?
    I don't know you - you decide.

  • Had to post this (Score:5, Funny)

    by nmb3000 ( 741169 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @05:45PM (#12688292) Journal
    Saw this image [seppo.net] earlier and got a good laugh.

  • Anti-trust (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ndansmith ( 582590 )
    I am no fan of Microsoft, but I think that they have been unfairly treated in these "anti-trust" cases in Europe and the US. Though I prefer Netscape/Mozilla to IE, I thought the arguments about a browser monopoly were quite foolish. And now the EU is making them produce a reduced-media edition. So does this mean that Microsoft will eventually have to remove every component which can be produced by a competitor from their Windows distros? All the while Linux and Mac users enjoy all the bundled software

    • Re:Anti-trust (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SpottedKuh ( 855161 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @05:56PM (#12688405)
      Linux and OS X already come as "reduced-media editions." Nothing forces me to install iTunes on my Powerbook; I can omit it from the installation. Nothing forces me to use Mozilla on a Gentoo machine; I could happily use Lynx.

      The problem with Microsoft is that you don't have these choices. There is no WinXP without IE or Windows Media Player. This is what harms competition the most. This is the reason for an anti-trust case.
      • If you remove IE, how would a majority of apps run? How would the windows desktop run? How would you view CHMs(help files)? All those require IE. Same goes with Windows Media, you can remove the application but the application is just a shell to the directx library sitting underneath. EU wants them to remove both applications and libraries, thus breaking windows.

        Other vendors do the same thing. Apple's dashboard is a bunch of javascript and html on top of their safari engine. Remove safari libra

      • Try this: you can install Windows XP or not install Windows XP. No one is forcing your hand.

        What, you don't want to have IE bundled with Windows XP? Then don't buy it. The seller decides under what terms they will sell their product, and you, the buyer, decide whether to buy based on those terms. You don't decide to get the f*cking government installed. You move on, to something that suits your needs.
    • When you control the OS, the Development Tools, the Applications, AND you dominate the market, there is no room for competition or free markets. Before saying this is unfair, you should try to understand a bit more what is the issue. It's about criminal predatory behavior.
    • I'd say it's quite fair - they are using one monopoly to force another (which is against the law), would IE have the marketshare it does if it had to compete against Firefox and Netscape on a level playing field (ie without being bundled with Windows)? Would so many media stores choose to use MS DRM if almost every computer sold to home users could not play it by default?

      Linux and MacOS are not monopolies, but if they were they would have to abide by the same rules which MS are being made to obey now.
    • Ok, so why isn't there a checkbox for whether or not I want any given component of MS available when I install the OS? Not asking for different windows versions, just one. Heck I should have the option not to use explorer with other options such as Astonshell. The only reason for them not to is that they already dug themselves into a hole.

    • Bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      People brushing these things off always seem to ignore or forget the fact that trustbuilding is illegal. You don't think the government should be limiting abuse of markets, or taking steps to halt anticompetitive behavior, or busting trusts? Fine. The proper thing to do then would be complain to the lawmakers, and try to get the law changed. The proper thing to do would not be to whine about the poor abused multibillion dollar monopolies when people decide, hey, we're going to start actually considering enf

    • Re:Anti-trust (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The Apple and Linux bundled software are not irremovable.

      And because the tight OS intergration MS is able to make thier browser and media player appear to be better products. Then when people try out other systems products (Firefox, Quicktime, whatever) on their Windows machine, they appear inferior to IE/WMP because they do not have the OS advantage.

      Average User then thinks "Well, WMP seems to run better then Quicktime, IE starts up faster then Firefox, I'm going to stick with Windows"

      If IE and WMP had
    • ... I thought the arguments about a browser monopoly were quite foolish.

      This might help your understanding. [usdoj.gov]

    • Oh no, the same old bullshit is repeated over and over again.
      MS was not found guilty because it has bundled various software with the OS - the problem is, that this bundled stuff could not be removed: while technically it was possible, MS used - illegally - its market power against those who tried (e.g.: "So, you want to sell your computers with RealPlayer instead of WMP? Well, then Windows will cost four times for you").
      • Except it can't be removed. Any software that depends on it breaks. It'd be like removing libc and expecting all of your Linux apps to continue working without a problem.

    • Re:Anti-trust (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @06:12PM (#12688561)

      I am no fan of Microsoft, but I think that they have been unfairly treated in these "anti-trust" cases in Europe and the US. Though I prefer Netscape/Mozilla to IE, I thought the arguments about a browser monopoly were quite foolish.

      Have you noticed that the state-of-the-art as far as web pages and web applications are concerned has basically not changed for the last 5 years? Have you ever wondered why all of a sudden the advancement of this field ground to a complete halt? Oh yes, wasn't it just about the time that MS dominated the web browser market by using their OS monopoly to fund development, made IE impossible to uninstall, and incorporated code in the OS to specifically break competitors software. Oh and there was that little something about shipping a default browser to 95% of the planet while intentionally breaking the published standard that they had agreed to adhere to and even helped write.

      Since that time the whole field has basically ground to a halt. Developers waste billions of dollars a year coding to standards and then working around all of IE's failures to conform and bugs that they intentionally use to be incompatible. Every web developer I know has cursed Microsoft for their evil behavior and for ruining an entire field all in order to milk a little more money out of everyone.

      Antitrust laws exist for several reasons. Mostly it is because a capitalist model fails to work as soon as someone becomes a monopoly. When they do, they can get money without giving customers what they want, have motivation to not only not innovate, but to hold back innovation, and basically just suck money, while doing nothing. The EU is not run by idiots and they are doing the right thing here. The U.S. should have done it long ago but MS was contributing an insane amount of money to both the Democratic and Republican parties. Guess where that money comes from, ultimately from you any time you buy any computer with or without Windows.

      • "Antitrust laws exist for several reasons. Mostly it is because a capitalist model fails to work as soon as someone becomes a monopoly. When they do, they can get money without giving customers what they want, have motivation to not only not innovate, but to hold back innovation, and basically just suck money, while doing nothing."

        Yeah that's exactly the situation with standard oil.

    • Re:Anti-trust (Score:2, Insightful)

      by CliffH ( 64518 )
      Ah, but there lies the difference. In Mac OSX (regular OSX users can correct me on this) and in Linux (or BSD) distributions the bundling is of seperate apps which may or may not depend on parts of the OS and can be seperated from the OS as a whole. For Linux and *BSD, you don't HAVE to use Firefox if you use a certain Window Manager, in OSX you don't HAVE to use Safari if you don't wish to (and I think you can choose not to install it or at least get rid of it). In WinXP, you HAVE to keep IE on the system
    • Unfair?

      Look at the US anti-trust case. Microsoft had completely ignored the internet. This allowed competitors to come into the market. When Microsoft discovered their mistake Netscape had over 90% of a big and growing market. Microsoft then created their (in the first versions horrible) browser. They used their big money tank to give away their browser for free to kill the competition, and leveraged their near-monopoly in operating systems to stronghand PC manufacturers into only installing the Microsoft

    • As a starter - you apparenty don't get what monopoly practices are. Let me explain by example:

      > I am no fan of Microsoft, but I think that
      > they have been unfairly treated in these
      > "anti-trust" cases in Europe and the US.

      Here goes your opinion without stating *why*.

      > Though I prefer Netscape/Mozilla to IE, I
      > thought the arguments about a browser
      > monopoly were quite foolish.

      Because they were not about browser monopoly - during browser wars MS had no monopoly on browser market. They u
    • You've magnificently failed to understand the argument, which goes like this:

      1. Microsoft have the PC operating system market more-or-less sewn up. Yes I know you've got Apple and Linux. How many systems in PC World/Dixons, Time or advertised in the media do you see running OS X or Linux?

      2. A market opens up for a new application on Windows. An application which the majority of people are likely to want, and which a company can somehow make money out of. In 1997/8, it was the web browser. Today it'
    • I am no fan of Microsoft, but I think that they have been unfairly treated in these "anti-trust" cases in Europe and the US.

      Is this based on the notion of "double jeopardy"? Being tried for the same thing twice is unfair?

      If this is the case then, while well intentioned, you're wrong. The only way to eliminate this situation is to federate authority to some higher power. Does that appeal to you? Frankly, I'd rather Microsoft "suffer" with EU politics than Chirac have a vote over the US economy in some
    • Yes.

      What they should've done was say, "You have two options. One: remove IE and WMP from Windows and make them easily removeable. Two: keep them bundled and release full specifications for the file formats and IE internals. Those are your options, or Windows may no longer be sold in the EU."

      And then fine them.

      There's no point in taking a fine over something that's already happened.
    • Of course, you read the 200 pages of the "finding of facts", where the browser is just the tip of the iceberg of illegal practices to bully "partners" into maintaining their monopoly?
      Try "microsoft monopoly" in google, it's the first link.

  • how about Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by muszek ( 882567 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @05:56PM (#12688415) Homepage
    Every distro I've tried had tones of stuff bundled with it. How should this be considered? Same as IE/WMP in Windows? Hopefully not... here are my two reasons:

    1. Any other OS does not have a monopoly - different rules apply (or, to be precise - antimonopolistic rules don't apply).

    2. All that extra stuff in Linux is not integrated with OS (for example AFAIR you can't uninstall IE).

    What do you think? Has this problem been mentioned/discussed somewhere?
    • There's nothing wrong with bundling, but everything wrong with using your domination of the OS market to attempt to secure a monopoly in content distribution, encryption, tool chains, etc.

      Basically, bundle all you want. But forcing a bundle of seperate vertical market platforms all from the same vendor that has an economic interest in using a loss-leader approach to securing monopolies, and you've lost my sympathy.

      I don't know why this is so confusing. Using predetory pricing reduces competition. Reduced
      • "There's nothing wrong with bundling, but everything wrong with using your domination of the OS market to attempt to secure a monopoly in content distribution, encryption, tool chains, etc."

        You mean like refusing to license fairplay to competitors to lock iPod customers into iTunes for online music.
    • As has been repeated ad nauseum in this discussion, the difference is that you have choices in your GNU/Linux distro of choice.

      When you set up your distro, you are given a choice of what to install (KDE, Gnome, etc.). When you install WinXP, you are required to install IE 6, WMP 9, etc. This requirement shuts out 3rd-party vendors while keeping MS market share. That is what is illegal -- using one's monopoly in one area to increase market share in another.
      • Actually, even that's not quite correct.

        It's not "really" about choice, it's about the bundled software working better than any third party software ever could because of its use of hidden APIs built into the operating system that no competitor can use or work around. Choice is still there. I can still buy and install some third party media player/browser or even one of the free one's, but when's the last time you've seen any that load and respond and just plain interact with the rest of the system as snap

  • It's a small fine (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @06:05PM (#12688501)
    Considering Microsoft tried to destroy the Web.
    IE would have stopped talking to Apache and slowly broke the web. This was their strategy.
    IE talking to IIS servers on WinOS only, think of the insane liscensing costs of even a small server farm.
    The Web is worth nillions, 5% of M$ daily sales is chump change considering the loss to Commerce Worldwide.
    Now of course Governments shouldn't stick their noses in, but the courts should and did when a monopoly behaves illegally just like for any other crime - it is a legal matter and was pursued as such.
    This is why Netscape went Open Source, because Microsoft was buying the web and Netscape realised its server business, where the money was, would be over when IE had blanket coverage and Netscape couldn't afford the developers to fight back.
    Microsoft commited a crime, they broke the law and they still are, they should be punished and the punishment should fit the crime - it is pretty small ion fact, as evidenced by Microsoft completely ignoring it.
    If only America had the balls to follow suit they might be brought to heel, if not break 'em up, just like Ma Bell.
    Massive monopolies do not a healthy market economy make.

    • Re:It's a small fine (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually, the guy who developed IE at the start, Ben Slivka, told a different story about seven years ago. The way he saw it, Netscape was the problem.

      You see, Netscape was making servers, messaging software ,email and so forth that all inter-operated in the business environment back when NT 4 was *marginal*, and unless Microsoft themselves had a browser, they'd be facing total lockout in the enterprise and the web markets in rapid succession.

      IE doesnt talk to IIS in any way it doesnt talk to Apache, and

      • Re:It's a small fine (Score:3, Insightful)

        by stewby18 ( 594952 )

        even then ASP.net only renders 'equivelent' HTML representations of application objects based on user-agent

        That, unfortunately, is not true by default, unless things have changed in the last year. I spent quite a while trying to figure out how the pages I'd carefully crafted statically to be standards-compliant and work well cross-browser suddently went to hell in Firefox when I started serving the pieces up through ASP.NET. I thought I had screwed up while breaknig the page apart until I found that wh

  • abuse of monopoly is a crime, that's why (Score:3, Insightful)

    by toby ( 759 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @06:26PM (#12688743) Homepage Journal
    does this mean that Microsoft will eventually have to remove every component which can be produced by a competitor from their Windows distros? All the while Linux and Mac users enjoy all the bundled software that comes for free with their OSs

    Linux and Apple do not hold monopolies on their markets, so even if they wanted to, they can't break the relevant laws. The findings in the US and Europe were that M$ has broken those laws, and even a casual familiarity with their business practices would hardly leave anyone in doubt!

    If M$ won't respect the law, they should be penalised. Of course, I'd rather see them penalised by a total market boycott, but that probably assumes an unrealistic level of common sense from their customers and potential customers...

  • Is this the deadline for compliance or for submitting a proposal that would hopefully eventually result in compliance?
  • Where is this '5% of its daily sales' fine figure coming from? Every previous article I've seen on this topic, including the one pointed to by this story, says a flat $5 million a day fine.

    And $5 million a day is chump change for Microsoft. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to start looking at Microsoft's financial statements.

    I bet they spend more than that on toilet paper for company restrooms.

    • $5 million is chump change? That is $1.8 billion per year. About 20% of their profits would go down the drain, or about their total profit from the European market. If faced with being shut out of the market, or paying the fine, it would be a push.

      Microsoft will give in. If not totally, enough to get EU off its back.
      • For a company that has approximately 50 billion in *cash* laying around, controls 95 percent of the world market, and still has additional billions in sales per year, they can easily afford to pile up $1.8 billion a year in Bill Gates' back yard, set it on fire just to watch it burn, and write it off as an "operational expense".
    • 5% of average sales comes very close to $5 million. Microsofts annual revenue last year was $36,835,000,000. EU stated 5% fine. The $5 million is thrown around to make it clearer what the stakes are.

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close