Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Your Rights Online

EC Reviews New Complaints Against Microsoft 114

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the some-people-just-can't-win dept.
Rob tells us that while Microsoft may still be fighting against existing antitrust sanctions the European Commission is already reviewing new complaints made against the software giant. From the article: "European Commission spokesperson, Jonathan Todd, confirmed that the competition commission is considering the complaints but said that no decision has been taken on a course of action, adding that the commission does not have to wait for formal complaints to take action against a company it suspects of anti-competitive behavior."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EC Reviews New Complaints Against Microsoft More

EC Reviews New Complaints Against Microsoft

Comments Filter:
  • Not enough cowbell.

  • nothing new to see here... move along... (Score:3, Funny)

    by advocate_one ( 662832 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @02:45PM (#13616295)
    same old, same old... Microsoft upsetting people again...
    • These complaints come as no surprise, according to inside sources [geekculture.com].

    • Re:nothing new to see here... move along... (Score:5, Funny)

      by sandman935 ( 228586 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @02:52PM (#13616361) Homepage

      True, but it's innovating. They're finding new ways to upset people.

    • Re:nothing new to see here... move along... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Karzz1 ( 306015 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @03:02PM (#13616429) Homepage
      I found this particular paragraph interesting:

      "Ms Kroes has declared herself "determined" that open source developers should have access to the information, and Microsoft appealed to the Court of First Instance recently to get a legal decision on whether it should be required to share communications source code with open source software vendors."

      Since when does anyone give a crap about MS source code... I thought they just wanted the specifications for these protocols published in a free (beer and speech) manner?

      • Re:nothing new to see here... move along... (Score:5, Funny)

        by advocate_one ( 662832 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @03:06PM (#13616460)
        correct, we do not want the source code, just properly documented APIs that aren't encumbered with ridiculous licensing agreements...
        • Exactly... Do MS lawyers change arguments like this intentionally so as to muddy the waters? (rhetorical question)

          • Re:nothing new to see here... move along... (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward
            Yes, I suspect so. Microsoft apologists run with this immediately: "Microsoft shouldn't be forced to publish their source code". Which of course is correct. They shouldn't. However, it's a strawman argument. Nobody has demanded that that they should be forced to do so. What actually has been demanded is that they publish specs.
            • I think more so. Not only should they be forced to publish spec's. They should also be forces to keep those published spec's the same (or atleast compatable) over different versions atleast minor versions.

              A new major version can have a new (published) spec.

      • Re:nothing new to see here... move along... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by The Famous Brett Wat ( 12688 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @04:30PM (#13617120) Homepage Journal
        I thought they just wanted the specifications for these protocols published...

        Microsoft is not known for having complete and accurate documentation of any of its APIs or file formats. If you want the absolute truth, you go to the source code. Think about it: if there were a discrepancy between what the documentation says, and what the code does, which one do you think will be considered "in error" in most cases?

        It's rare that "specifications" are considered authoritative over "implementation" -- more common that "specifications" are written retroactively based on the implementation when people realise that the source code is an unreadable mess, but they still need to know what it does at a glance.

        • Microsoft is not known for having complete and accurate documentation of any of its APIs or file formats. If you want the absolute truth, you go to the source code.

          So either they give up their source code, and endlessly whine about nasty governments "forcing them to give up their crown jewels," or else hand over a buggy spec, and risk having a court find that they failed to comply with a court order.

          No doubt, they would do the latter, and try to argue that buggy specs is standard industry practice, and

      • The article didn't say they wanted code:
        "the two sides still cannot agree on whether interoperability information should be made available to open source software suppliers"
        "interoperability information" sounds a lot more like protocol & file format info to me.
      • "Since when does anyone give a crap about MS source code... I thought they just wanted the specifications for these protocols published in a free (beer and speech) manner?"

        I do!

        I could finally write good quality and secure code from the masters.

      • According to this artical, the specification is worthless:
        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/19/why_micros ofts_eu_concession/ [theregister.co.uk]

        Quote from artical:
        "The source code itself is the specification . The level of detail required to interoperate successfully is simply not documentable - it would produce a stack of paper so high you might as well publish the source code."

        However, they also say:
        "There is information that the Samba developers want to see: the IDL descriptions for remote procedure calls. These underpi
      • Indeed. It's a subtle straw-man.

        "They want the barest minimum information on how our products talk to each other so they can ensure interoperability"

        is a lot more reasonable-sounding than

        "They want the actual source code of our products" (implied: so they can rip-off our hard-created intellectual property).

        Frankly nobody I know would want to touch MS source code, apart from possibly virus/worm writers. Everyone else'd rather see the access and comms protocols and write their own implementations. Ones tha

  • Alternative headline... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    EC Rendered Impotent Due to Constant Examination of Microsoft.
    EC Contemplates Name Change To Microsoft Review Committee.

  • interesting. best of luck! (Score:5, Informative)

    by ministerofsickeningr ( 524980 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @02:47PM (#13616306) Homepage
    if the EC did force M$ to embrace interoperability. it would be a boon for open source, and other software companies wanting to not get stomped on with each new rev of OS/application suite.

  • Rather Lacking in Details (Score:5, Interesting)

    by corngrower ( 738661 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @02:47PM (#13616308) Journal
    After reading through the article, I didn't find much in the way of information. What specifically was the problem here? Microsoft still bundling? What are they being accused of bundling this time?
    • The combination of programs in there office suite is meant to be the problem, Word and Outlook seems to be the big ones.

      The Inquirer had some extra details here. [theinquirer.net]
    • "Microsoft still bundling? What are they being accused of bundling this time?"

      Notepad?
    • " After reading through the article, I didn't find much in the way of information."

      That would be because there was no info in the article whatsoever.
      The link to the inquirer article below links to the NYT that says it MIGHT be related to office.

      Between 3 articles we have:
      Someone thought something MS sells should not be bundled somehow. May be a current item or a planned item and it may or may not involve office noone is saying.

      That should be more than enough to comment on, right?

      All that said, always wonder
    • An earlier article mentioned bundling of MS Office with Windows licenses, thus erecting a barrier to competing office suites. EU probably wants to ensure that OEMS are able to buy Windows licences cheaper than Windows+MSOffice licenses. Microsoft obviously doesn't want this.

  • Look out, Microsoft! (Score:3, Funny)

    by cortana ( 588495 ) <sam@NoSPaM.robots.org.uk> on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @02:47PM (#13616312) Homepage
    The kleptocrats can't quite afford their new mansions and yauchts. They're looking for large, rich businesses to help them out.
    • Yes. Perhaps these rich businesses can even provide them with spellcheckers for their yachts.

      So, has MS been taken to task yet for what they did to BeOS?
    • gee, if they are really that bad, why does not MS withdraw their sales in EU? Is it possible that MS's complaints might be akin to murderer saying that they are being treated unfairly, when they are caught murdering again?

      • Re:Look out, Microsoft! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by FidelCatsro ( 861135 ) <fidelcatsro AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @03:04PM (#13616447) Journal
        Because even if they get sued for 1 billion and have to alter their products for the EU nations costing a further 1 billion they would have to be completely insane to give up such a large market to the competitors , never mind the profit loss they would suffer which is well in excess of 2 billion .

          Plus if they did remove the product and people still wanted to use it then there would be far less complaints if people just downloaded a pirate version

      • gee, if they are really that bad, why does not MS withdraw their sales in EU?

        They can't just withdraw from the EU. It's such a big, tasty market. If they want to do business there, then they will have to play by the bloodsucker's rules.

        Is it possible that MS's complaints might be akin to murderer saying that they are being treated unfairly, when they are caught murdering again?

        You assume that the EU Commission is on our side, that its goal in this affair is to regulate the market, thereby ensuring that Mic

      • Do you really think MS has that power? Imagine this...

        MS pulls products from europe.

        Europe repeals all MS patents and copyrights. All MS software becomed public domain in Europe.

        MS shareholder crucify ballmer for making such a boneheaded decision.

  • Tounge Twister (Score:3, Funny)

    by OctoberSky ( 888619 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @02:49PM (#13616329)
    "confirmed that the competition commission is considering the complaints" I can barely say that out loud, let alone imagine how Microsofts attorneys are going to understand it said with a British Accent.
    • In the spirit of International Co-Operation, we on the Isles of Great Britain will rephrase it in a way the American Lawyers can understand:

      "They confirmed, like, that the, y'know, competition commision, like is considering, yeah, considering the complaints, yeah?"
      • That only covers parts of the US. For the Southern States, you need the following translation:


        "Y'all Yurocats canfirmed that there tha competition kermission is considerin' that there complaints, y'all. Ya hear?"

  • Well, kudos to the EC (Score:4, Insightful)

    by reality-bytes ( 119275 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @02:49PM (#13616339) Homepage


    The European Commission do seem to keep pluggin on this. However, I was under the impression that their first ruling was supposed to have put this to rest.

    I know they already issued a financial punishment to Microsoft (which Microsoft could undoubtedly afford) but seeing as this has 'come back' again, you'd think they would arrange a punishment which would actually hurt Microsoft - to persuad them to Be Good(tm)
    • I agree. And I think that people who find fault with this often don't understand how antitrust law works in the real world. IANAL, of course.

      I cannot think of any companies who have been broken up against their will as a result of antitrust procedings. Instead agreements are made regarding behavior going forward and additional, often oppresive scrutiny is applied as a way of slowly righting the wrong. The inability that AT&T had to capitalize on new markets eventually lead to their (largely) volunta
  • .... that an microsoft antitrust article features a ginormous ad for Windows XP
  • . . . blah blah blah, blah, blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah,blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah.

    [How do you say "blah" in French or German?]
  • Are they are looking to fill a hole in their budget here?

  • This would be a good time for a Microserf to..... (Score:5, Funny)

    by 8127972 ( 73495 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @03:14PM (#13616512)
    .....move the chairs out of Ballmer's office.
  • Looks like if this goes through then Open Source Software and Microsoft will be on a level playing field when it comes to interoperability.

    Could things like the Windows Media format and network API nightmares could be a thing of the past on Linux and FreeBSD?

    Come to think of it, will this mean that Microsoft's evil 'Direct Play' API will become an open spec? If so then this will good news for game porters the world over.
    • How common is Direct Play anyway? I was under the impression that the vast majority rolled their own network code rather than used it. Several of the books on game developement I have read specifically mentioned that you shouldn't use Direct Play even.

      I don't think its officially being supported in DirectX anymore either.
    • Yes, I bought Linux Game Programming (by Nurgle, not JRH's unfortunately) and he was adamant on that point, but it'd be nice to have AvP & other old games fully portable.

      If Carmageddon uses Direct Play then I think it's in the best interests for all of us discerning gamers!

      I don't seem to see anyone point out that Mirosoft's License for interoperability [eweek.com] (also here [zdnet.co.uk] and here [internetnews.com] ) that was created for Open Source access to otherwise DRM'ed information was a sham. They put "Per installation Licensing

  • For people not in the EU.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @03:42PM (#13616726)
    In Europe Microsoft has different contracts with businesses preventing them from using other software.
    For instance: to become some kind a MS-partner you have to have at least 30% of your staff and 50% of your sales people have some kind of MS Certification. The total share of your servers/clients that has to be Windows 70%. Next to that, if a MCS... can convince management to replace a Linux server by a Windows server they can get a bonus from MS up to 1000 Euro/server.

    IF you can or will not comply your company will have to pay all licenses in full until 2 years back

    To the people that don't believe me: I worked in such a company with such a contract. I told one of the customers that Microsoft wasn't his best choice for the technical needs he had (big customer, lots of servers) and I almost got fired because some big shot from Microsoft got to hear about it and demanded my release or they would revoke the license advantages. If you complain to the authorities same Bad Things(tm) will happen
  • The EU is part of the operating system.
  • "The Pope? How many divisions does he have?"
  • FTA: "Ms Kroes [EC Competition Commissioner] has declared herself "determined" that open source developers should have access to the information, and Microsoft appealed to the Court of First Instance recently to get a legal decision on whether it should be required to share communications source code with open source software vendors."

    This is about whether or not MS meets interoperability standards mandated by the EC as part of the last action against MS.

    It seems crystal-clear to me: Either the stand
  • The EU commissioner for competition, Neelie Kroes, is a very contreversial figure in Europe. She was revieing cases of companies that she was working for only a few months before, has a habit of sticking her nose into everything, and not always complying to behavior codes she accepted when taking on the position.

    Last year she even got a University she used to work for to give Bill Gates an honory doctorate.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the whole process slowed to a halt because of her.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your own mileage may vary.

Close